ML20153B765
| ML20153B765 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/17/1985 |
| From: | Landsman R NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151D196 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-583 NUDOCS 8805060074 | |
| Download: ML20153B765 (101) | |
Text
e p
1 -
2 STATE OF !!ICHIGA11
/
3 I!T THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUt1TY OF !!IDLAND 4
)
5 DOW . CH E!!ICAL COMPANY, )
~
)
6 Plaintiff, )
)
7 -vs- )
) No. 83-0022325 8 CONSUMERS PONER COMPANY, )
)
9 Defendant. )
)
10 ------------------
11 The Deposition of ROSS D. LANDS!'AN, taken before me, Glenn G. liiller, CSR-2596, Registered 12 rof essional Reporter and Notary Public within and f or the ounty of Hayne, (acting in Chicago), State of !!ichigan, 13 t 200 East Randolph Drive, 59th Floor, Chicago, Illinois,
, n Monday, June 17, 1985.
. 14 15 PFEAR ANCES :
16 KIRKL AND & ELLIS 200 East Randolph Drive 17 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (By James Goold, Esq.)
18 Appearing on behalf of the Plaintif f, 19 DARRIS, SOTT, DEN!! & DRIKER 20 21st Floor First Federal Building Detroit, !!ichigan 48226 21 (By John Libby, Esq. and James Brunner, Ecq.)
22 Appearing on behalf of the Def ondant, 23 24 I 'I i 8805060074 880408 PDR FOIA r BARAMB7-503 PDR lafayette Building
- "5" 5" 3 min %rthuestern lluy.
Suae MO 962.I176 Susa,2:a Detroit, \fichigan #226 Farmineton litlh, \fuchigan 18nl8
l [PPEARM7CCS A CO!!TI110CD:
2 11EIL JE!!SElf, Esq.
Office of General Counsel 3 11uclear Regulatory Commission Uashington D. C. 20555 4
Appearing on behalf of the 11uclear negulatory Commission.
5 6
7
-8 9
10 11 ALSO PRESE!1T: Karen Laundroche ;
12 13 14 15 ,
16 !
17 ,
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 i
3 '
2 Lu:od Reporting Service ,gg \.,,, , , , , , , , , .,
(dayette Buildmg Saite Mo 962 II?6 Suite 220 (ktrat, \lichigan 18226 Farmington flith \lichigan 18m3 '
1 2 01 I T t1 C S S I 11 D E X 3
4 Mitness Examined Dy Page 5 :ROSS D. LA!!DSfW3 11r. Coold 6 6
7 8
9 10 E X II I D I T I 11 D C X 11 12 Exhibit !!o. Description Page 13 Exhibit llo,1 Resume of Ross B. Landsman 10 l 30 14 CPC 1631 Letter f rom SU I!well to JC Keppler, dated 8-10-7 9 l 15 CPC 1G43 !!ceting !!inutes of !!ay 5-7, 1981 33 16 Meeting with 11RC Staf f i
17 1:RC 271 Summary of Appeals !!ecting of 37 August 29, 1980, regarding 18 additional explorations and testing of tiidland Plant fill 19 11RC 317 Letter f rom Darl !!ood to Consumerc 46 20 Power, da ted 4-6-82 i l
21 CPC 964 Letter of DB norn, da ted 4-6-82 53 22 11RC 259 Letter of DC Horn, dated 6-4-82 62 23 !1RC 250 Memorandum from Jameu S. Brunner to 66 James A. Pit: gerald, dated 8-20-02 24 Luzod Reporting Service y ,o g ,,,,,, ,,
lafayette Budding Suite Mn 962 1176 Suite 220 fletroit, \fichigan 18226 Farmington lidh, \fichigan -18018 r
1 2 EXHIBIT I !! D E X 3
4 Exhibit tio. Description Page 5 DEC 227.2 Cover letter from James E. Brunner 77 to William Paton, dated 9-14-81 6
NRC 262 Letter f rom RF Warnici: to James W. 84 7 Cook, dated 11-0-02 8
9 10 11 .
12 13 14 15 16 j
~
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4
Luzod Reporting Service y ,o 3.,,g ,,,,, 77,.,_
lafayene Building Suite MO 962 1176 Suite 2:0 IMroit, \fichigan 18226 Farmington Ilills, .\fichigan 18018
__ - -- - - _ _ . _ - . _ _ _ . _ - -~ -
1 Chicago, Illinois 2 Monday, June 17, 1935 3 9:30 a.m.
4 5 MR. GOCLD: For the record, this is the 6 deposition of Dr. Ross Landsman, an employee of the NRC, 7 being taken pursuant to notice in Dow versus Concumors 8 Power . My name is Jim Goold.
9 Dr. Landsman, I will be examining you on 10 behalf of Dow. I' d suggest that the other people in the 11 room identify themselves now.
12 MR. JENSEN: I'm Neil Jensen, an attorney 13 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
14 MR. LIBBY: My name is John Libby. I'm an l l
15 attorney with the law firm of Barris, Sott, Denn and l 16 Driker and I'll be representing consumers in thie !
l 17 de posi tion. With me is James Brunner of the CPCo legal 18 department and Karen Laundroche of our officos.
19 MR. GOOLD: Could the reparter swear the 20 witness, plea se ?
21 ROSS B. LANDSMAN 22 was thereupon called as a witness herein and, after 23 having been first duly cworn to tell the truth, the i
24 whole truth and nothing but the truth, was examined I
5 Lu:od Reporting Service 3asso u,thue,rern truy.
Lafayette Buildine Suar M0 9sg.;;76 Suite 220
()etrmt, \fichigan 88226 Farmington Ilith. \lichigan 18018
1 and testified as follows:
2 EXA!1INATION 3 DY MR. GOOLD:
l 4 0 Could you state your f ull name for the record, plea se ?
5 N Ross Landsman.
6 0 And by whom are you employed?
7 A Nuclear Regulatory Commission. -
8 Q Uhat is your present position with the NRC, Dr. Lansdman?
9 N Can I ask you a question? Should I look at that or you?
10 0 Both of us, whatever is most comfortable, Dr. Landsman, 11 probably me.
12 A Okay. I'm a reactor inspector with Region III.
I i
13 0 Is Region III based in Glen Ellyn, Illinois? ,
i 14 h Yes, it is.
i :
I 1 15 0 Dr. Landsman, I' d like to review your education and t 16 prof essional background in a general we,y bef ore we get .
17 into the substantive testimony. First, could you 18 summarize for us what degrees you have beyond the high 19 school level?
20 A I have a Bachelors degree from Illinois Institute of 21 l Technology in civil engineering; I have a Masters degree 22 in civil engineering f rom Illinois Institute of l
i 23 ! Technology; and I have a Ph.D. in civil engineering also 24 f rom Illinois Institute of Technology.
Laod Reporting Service ,ma 9, ,, y Isfayette Building Suite hm 962 III6 Suute 2 D Detroit. \fichigan 18226 Farminuton Ililin, \fichigan 18018
O 1 2 When did you receive your Bachelors degree?
2 A 1965.
3 2 You mentioned that it was in civil engineering. Has there 4 any particular area of specialization you had?
5 & No, there wasn't.
6 Q How about your Masters degree; when was that awarded and 7 was there any particular area of specialization?
8 h That was in 1968 and that was in soil mechanics.
9 ? And when did you receive your doctorate?
10 N 1973. That was also in soil mechanics.
11 0 Since you received your doctorate have you held various 12 engineering positions concerned with soil mechanics?
I 13 A Yes, I have.
14 0 Could you sucmarize those for us, and for the record let I <
15 me state that you have a copy of your resume as cf 16 September 1979 bef ore you; is that correct? !
17 A Yes. !
i l 18 Q Please f eel f ree to draw on the resume in summarizing f or 19 us what your work background is prior to your joining the 20 NRC.
21 MR. LIBBY: Jim, just for the record, if 22 ,
he's j ust going to be reading f ro.n this document I think j 23 that the document should be marked as an exhibit so it's !
l l
24 part of the of ficial record in this case. ;
j i
7 lafayette Busiding
"' "5"# *5" 3mtIn %rthurstern fluy.
Suite MO 962 1176 suage 2x Detrat, \fkhigan t8226 Farmineton listis \fichigan 2018
4 1 !!R. GOOLD: That's fine. I'll be happy to 2 do so.
3 !!R. LIBBY: Okay.
4 DY MR. GOOLD:
5 2 Please proceed.
6 N I guess I'll go back to 196 5. I was an associate research 7 engineer at the IIT research institute, and that's in the 8 Chicago, Illinois, dealing .with all phases of soil and i
9 rock mechanics. You don' t want me to read this.
10 ) no. Can you just give us a running summary?
11 A Yes, okay. In 1971 I went' to work f or A. Epstein and 12 Sons, which is an architectural firm here in Chicago, as a 13 foundation and structural engineer. In 1972 I went to work for a company called Mirza Engineering, which is a l 14 15 soils outfit in Chicago. They did all kinds of soils 16 work, mostly inspection work on construction. In 1973 I j 17 went to work for Sargent and Lundy in the geotechnical 18 division as a soil engineer and we did all phases of 19 fossil and nuclear plants f rom initial site work to final 20 in-place inspection. Then in 1979 I went to work f or 21 Kelley Dewatering Company, which is in Glenview, Illinois.
22 They' re a dewatering company. They provide dewatering 23 wells to dewater rites. Then in 197 9 I went to work f or 24 the NRC as a reactor inspector, ,
l 8
/'u:od ReporIing Sernice ,, ,g ,, A 9 ,,,, ,n ,,,q l Isfa)ette ButIdin.
Suite MO 962 ll?6 Suute 220 Detroit, \fichigan M226 Farmensran Iltlls, \fichigan 18018
1 ) Let me back up for a moment to your work at Sargent and 2 Lundy. Approximately how many power plants, both fossil 3 and nuclear, did you do some work on?
4 A That would be a guess.
5 ) Can you give us a rough estimate?
6 A No. Numerous.
7 0 More than ten?
8 A Ye s.
9 ) Would it be f air to say that during your work f rom af ter 10 you received your doctorato up till you joined the NRC you 11 were continuously involved in the area of soil mechanics?
12 4 Yes.
13 ) And did you become f amiliar in that connection with 14 compaction standards, compaction equipment, compaction 15 techniques, that sort of thing?
16 .lA Yes, I did.
l l 17 Q You mentioned that you joined the NRC in 1979 as a reactor 18 inspe ct or . Were you assigned to Region III as of then?
19 A Yes, I was.
20 Q What, as a general summary, were the duties of a reactor 21 inspector , focusing on your particular role?
22 MR. LIDBY: Just so I'm clear, when he took i
23 the position in 1979 or throughout his entiro --
i ,
l 24 BY tin. GOOLD: l l
9 f.uzod Reporting Service 9, ,,, y Lafaytte Busbe Suae Mo 962*Ii*6 Suite 220 Iktet, \fichiran M22t> Farmaneton listis. \lichiean molk
1 ) Focusing on the time when you joined the NRC.
2 A Reactor inspector, back then I was doing all kinds of 3 civil it.spection. I was a civil engineer so when I meant 4 reactor inspector / civil I was doing soil mechanics, 5 concrete inspection and steel inspection more than 6 anything.
7 Q Does soil mechanics, as you've used that term, include 8 compaction and placement of fil.1?
9 A Yes, it does.
l 10 Q For the record, let me j ust take your resume now and we'll 11 forwerd it to the Court Reporter with a request it be t
12 marged as an exhibit for the deposition.
13 MR. LIDBY: Well, I have a request. I' d 14 l like to see a copy of that bef ore I cross-examine him so 15 if you could, through the graces of your of fice, have a ;
16 photocopy of that made I' d appreciate it.
17 MR. GOOLD: Fine.
10 (Deposition Exhibit No.1, 19 Resume of Ross B. Landsman, 20 was marked for identification.)
i ,
21 'DY HR. GOOLD:
4
( '
22 0 During your initial years with Region III, Dr. Landsman, 23 i approximately how many nuclear plants were under 24 construction in the region where there was some amounc of i
i 10 1.us d Repor,ing Service , ,o ,,,, ,
IAfyrne hidine Suate Mo 962 11<~6 Swtr 2m Derrott, \fichigan Pt:26 Farmington iltlls, \lahtenn I80 lit
c 1 soils work going on?
2 h I think all of them that were under constr uction at the 3 time had some soils work going on. Say around a half- a 4 dozen I think.
5 0 Did you become f amiliar with the most commonly used 6 compaction standards for nuclear plants in the region?
7 N Well, when I was working at Sargent and Lundy I got very 8 f amiliar with them.
i 9 ) What compaction standard in your experience is most 10 commonly used f or nuclear plant construction?
11 A There are two; the modified proctor test, which is used 12 f or clay, and the relative density test, which is used for 13 sand.
14 0 What modified proctor standard in your experience is most 15 commonly used f or nuclear plant construction?
16 p The modified proctor is the only one.
I 17 i2 Uhat porcentage of modified proctor in your experience is 18 most commonly used?
l k
19 A Depends where the material is going to be used. If it's 20 under a building, I' d say 95 f rom what I recall, and if 21 it's not under a building maybe 90 would be adequate.
22 Q Did you come to learn what compaction standard was used 23 for clay fill at 111dland to support structures?
a 24 A At the time I did. I can' t recall now. !
11 .
lafayette Building 3n940 %nhurstern lluy.
Suite hw - 962*llI6 Sutte 23)
Iktroit. \lkhtgan 13226 Farmsnatm flulls \lichigan mala
1 0 Do you recall hearing about the use of a nechtel modified 2 proctor standard involving a 20 thousand f oot pound degree 3 of energy in the testing process?
4 A Yes.
S 2 Had you ever encountered the 20 thousand f oot pound test 6 in use at nuclear plants either in your experience at 7 Sargent and Lundy or in your experience with the 11RC, 3 other than Midland?
9 N No, I did not.
10 0 From your joining the NRC in 1979 up until now, can you 11 give us an overview of the positions you've held?
12 ,A Yeah. For the first four years I was a reactor inapector, .
13 like I said, doing all phases of civil work. The last 9
14 year I've been a project inspector once, in the operations 15 division I guess is what it's called, once tiidland f olded 16 a year ago I had to look up for another job, i
17 Q Over the period f rom 1979 through 1983, was there any 18 particular nuclear plant that came to occupy more of your 19 time than the others?
20 A Midland.
21 Q Beginning about when did !!idland come to stand out in i
22 terms of your time commitments? ;
23 A I think it was '81.
l 24 0 And why did you come to spend increasing amount of time on ;
I l'
I" *'0"' " " .nein %rthurstern lluy.
Is/syrite Rw! dang Swre Mo 962 Il?6 Swtr 2:0 l)etrms. \fwhigan 22:6 Farm:netam liith. \lichigan 18n18
1 Midland?
2 h They were getting into the remedial soils program.
3 p Thinking back over your 1979 to 1983 work experience as a i
4 j' reactor inspector f or the NRC, were there any nuclear 5 plants in Region III that stood out as having particular 6 civil engineering problems?
7 MR. LIBBY: I'm going to object becauce I 8 think the question is a little bit ambiguous.
9 A Should I answer?
10 3Y MR. GOOLD:-
11 0 Can you answer, Dr. Landsman?
l 12 h Besides Midland?
l I
13 2 Well, which plants stood out as having the most severe 14 civil engineering problems that you encountered in your 15 work experience?
16 l MR. LIBBY: Same objection.
1 17 A The one that I was intimately involved with which was 18 Midland.
19 DY MR. GOOLD:
l 20 Q Can you tell us approximately how much of your time was i
21 spent on Midland beginning in 1981?
22 N Pull time.
i 23 h Continuing until when?
24 Until the announced postponement, or whatever it was ;
I 13 Lu:od Reporting Sertice , y, ,, ,,
Isfayette Budding Suite A10 962 1176 su,ge 2;o Detro<t \lichizan M226 Farmintron lidb. \tahitan molR
1 called. -
2 0 I'd like to go back to approximately when you first came 3 to have assignments in connection with the flidland Plant.
4 You' d indicated that you j oined the flRC in September of 5 1979. When did you first learn that there was a soils 6 problem at the site?
7 N I actually joined the Commission in December of '79.
8 Let's put that on the record. I think right when I got 9 into the Commission I got f riendly with Gene Gallagher 10 since he was a civil engineer also in my group and I think 11 I learned through Gene that there was soil problems at 12 Midland.
13 Q During the early part of 1980 af ter you joined the 11RC, I
14 did you come to have some contact with the 141dland
,15 Proj ect?
16 A I didn' t have too much f con what I recall all of 1980 17 because it was Gene Gallagher's plant and I was working on ; ,
18 other plants. I'm not even cure if I visited the site in 19 1980.
20 0 Did you learn that whether remedial work was proceeding in 21 any active sense at the site in 19807 4
22 j MR. LIBBY: Just a second. I' m sor ry, Dr.
, 23 Landsman. Do you mean did he learn in 1980 that any I ,
24 remedial work was going on or does he know now that any I
i 14 (Afayette Butiding 3M10 %thur< tern lluy.
Suite 630 962'III6 Swtr 2:0 (ktroit \fichigan m226 Farmaneton Ihlh, \brhitan moln
1 remedial work was going on in 19807 2 3t liR. GOOLD 3 2 What was your understanding in 1980 as to whether remedial 4 work was proceeding at the site, Dr. Landsman?
5 h I really can' t recall, you know, from 1900 what I 6 remember.
7 Q Did there come a point when you learned that a surcharge 8 or preload had been placed at the Diesel Generator 9 Building?
10 A Probably learned abouc that at one of the meetings in 11 Washington that I attended, or it might have been in the 12 region reading through some of the documents. I cannot 13 recall.
14 0' Did you become aware that there had been a surcharge l
15 placed on the Diesel Generator Building prior to your 16 joining the 11RC7 17 A Yes.
I 18 Q And by the time you got involved with !!idland did you come 19 to learn that the surcharge had been removed?
20 Yes.
21 2 What, in general terms, was the surcharge as you 22 understood it? Can you give un just a general description 23 of what the term surcharge means as we've been discussing i i
24 in connection with the Diecol Generator Building? !
1 15 I dR Porting Sern-ice , , y, yn,,,, , ,,,, m , , ,_
(AfGyfil! Iktding Suar MO 962 1Ii6 .%uar 2:0 Iktroit. \fichipn #s2:6 Farmineron llill<. \lichigan 58018
1 k All right, tty understanding is that they were having 2 settlement problems with the Diesel Generator Building and 3 to speed up the settlement before they finished
, 4 construction of the building they preloaded the site, or 5 put a surcharge on it, approximately 20 feet of sand to 6 speed up the settlement of the underlying material.
7 ) Did you come to learn that at the time the surcharge was 8 placed that the Diesel Generator Building was 9 approximately 50 percent completed in terms of concrete 10 placement?
11 A Well, I learned that whether then or f rom the ASLD l
12 hearing. I'm not sure when I learned that.
13 0 In your experience with the NRC and in civil engineering 14 firms bef ore joining the NRC, had you heard of any other 15 instance in which a surcharge was placed in a 16 half-completed building?
17 A Ho.
I la 0 In the course of your work with the NRC, did you become 19 f amiliar with the impact placing the surcharge had in the 20 half-completed Diesel Generator Building?
i 21 A I' m sorry. The impact that placing the fill had?
22 C Placing the surcharge, did you become f amiliar with the 23 i impact of the surcharge on the structure? ;
l l 24 A Yes, I had.
I Luod Reporting Service yo \, ,, , ._
lafayette Hwidung S mte M O Ob2'EIIb Swtr l20 Detrdt, \lichips M226 Farminerm fiells, \lwhigan MOIR
+..,y - _ , , - - - + p__ ~ .
9
1 2' Uhat impact did it have?
2 A The impact was it was very hard to o".alyze the building 1
3 af ter that since they continued to construct the building.
4 So trying to go back and estimate the stresses in the 1
5 building at a certain time period was very difficult.
i 6 0 Did you become f amiliar with any cracking of the Diesel 7 Generator Building?
0 4 Yes.
9 ) And did you become f amiliar with any impact the surcharge 10 had on cracking problems at the Diesel Generator Building?
11 !A That's what I was just ref erring to. It was very hard to 12 analyze the cracks in the building because a lot of them i 13 were occurring during the surcharge period.
14 0 Did you come to reach any view as to whether the cracking 15 at the Diecel Generator Building was serious?
\
16 A Yes.
l '
17 Q What was that view?
l 18 f
I thought it was extremely serious.
, 19 0 In the course of your work with the unc, did you come to 20 learn of any other structure at a nuclear plant that had 21 as significant a cracking problem as the Diesel Generator 22 building at Midland?
I i 23 A Mo, I did not. l ,
l 24 0 11ow about in your work with civil engineering firms before l
17 f.u: d Reporting Sertice 3,g p, 9, ,7 q lafayette Baildme ,,,,,n S wer M O 962 11I6 Suite 231 Iktroit. \fichigan t8226 Farmineron llulls. \luchizan 48018
o 1 joining the ImC, were you f amiliar with any structure that 2 had as serious a cracking problem?
3 A Not that I can recall.
4 0 You had mentioned that it became dif ficult to analyze the 5 effects of the surcharge in the cracking on the structure.
6 Were attempts made to do such analyses?
7 A Yes.
8 ) What was the problem doing the analysis, was there a lack 9 of records, can you explain what the problem was?
10 A Dechtel Power Corporation tried to analyze the building to 11 show it was adequate af ter the surcharge was removed and I 12 know the NRC tried to analyze it and they never could come 13 to an agreement, or they came to an agreement and there 14 was some of us in the Commission who didn' t believe what 15 they were saying. As I said before, it's very hard to 16 analyze a building that's cracked. It's almost impossible 17 to analyze a cracked structure to begin with. Concrete in 18 particular.
19 There was no documented records of how it 20 was analyzed or who analyzed it. There was -- it was very 21 difficult, and I think it still is, to come to some 22 comprehension of what's going on in that structure before <
23 the surcharge, during the surcharge and after the 24 surcharge. It was very hard to get records to show when a ,
i 18 f.a_fayette k%e
"? "
3n9tn %rthursterre flu 3.
Suste MO 962.]l76 sua,2:0 (Mrmt, \fschigan M22f> Farmmerun lidis. \lahtean 13n18
1 lot of the cracks occurrcd, which you needed to do the 2 analysis.
3 2 Did the MRC bring in consultants to assist in trying to do 4 this kind of analysis?
5 h Yes, they did.
6 2 And were the consultants brought in 'y the NRC able to do 7 the anal *l sis?
8 A The consultants that MRR, which is our Wachington 9 licensing branch, brought in to do the analysis -- you 10 have to remember the design of a structure, the charter in 11 the Commission is that NRR will review that. The region 12 only inspects to make sure that they do it, that the 13 licensee does what they told URR they' re going to do. So 14 I got i:tvolved with this sort of on the side in reviewing 15 the data with Joe Kane and Harry Singh. I' m sure 16 everybody knows who they are.
17 O Dr. Landsman, let me just interrupt for a moment. I 18 believe !!r. Kane will have had his testinony put on in the 19 court bef ore you appear but that may not be true for Mr.
20 Singh. Could you identify who he is?
l 21 A Harry Singh works for the Corps of Engineers and he was l 22 one of the consultants URC hired to work on the Diecel 23 Generator Building. IIe was the soils consultant hired to i 24 work on various portions of the structure. I think he was l l
19 I'u; d R' Porting Sereice g , , ,,
Lafayette Raildine Suite hw 962 1176 suite so Iktrat. \fichtean MLM Fannsneton finlis. \fichigan n018
1 just on the Diesel Generator Building and the dike, but 2 I' m not sure exactly.
3 Q- What was the overall conclusion that the consultants 4 reached or found that they could not reach with respect to 5 the integrity of the Diesel Generator Building; was it 6 still in question af ter the analyses were attempted?
7 N The problem was the soil engineers could not believe the 8 analysis that the structural engineers did. It was more 9 of a -- we had actual settlement readings of the building 10 that said how far down the building went and the 11 structural engineers said it was impossible for the 12 building to cattle the way we had the readings and they 13 ref used to use them in their analysis because they said 14 they would have' caused very high stresses in the building.
15 The structural engineers en the other hand, 16 I'm talking about 11RR and their consultants, accepted the 17 building ac-is and had I not been in f ront ofCongressonej 18 day I think it would have stayed that way.
19 ) As of the time the Midland Plant was canceled or abandoned 20 and you ceased to be involved with the project, had the 21 impact of the surcharge on the Diesel Generator Building 22 been resolved in terms of the remaining integrity of the .
i 23 structure?
24 A It wasn' t so much the surcharge was resolved. The 90 f.u: d Reportine Service y ,g \ ,,,,h y,,,,, ,7, ,_
f.afayette Buildme Suite rao 962 11?6 Suste 2:a Iktrout. \fichigan 18226 Farmmeton flills \fichigan 38018
1 surcharge I think got the most of the settlement out f rom 2 under the building. The only unresolved item that I had 3 with the Diesel Generator Builcing was the structural 4 adequacy or the structural inadequacy of the cracked 5 structure. That's still open.
6 2 As of this date?
7 A Yes.
8 ) Thinking back to the stresses that were imposed on the 9 Diesel Generator Building because of the surcharge, did 10 you reach any view as to whether it would have been better 11 to tear doun the building and start again?
12 fm. LIBBY: I' m going to obj ect. I think 13 the question is ambiguous. Better in what sense?
14 fG. GOOLD: To have avoided these questions 15 concerning the cracking and the effect of the surcharge on l 16 the integrity of the structure.
17 A I think early in the game other people and myself, looking 18 back with hindsight it's always easier, I think everybody 19 would have saved a lot of headaches had they -- since the 20 walls were the only things that was up on the building, 21 had they had ripped it down and started over again.
22 DY fir. GOOLD:
1 23 0 I' d like to turn now to the Auxiliary Building. I take it -
24 you became f amiliar with the soils problem at that 21
< Lu:od Reporting Sers ice sem urthurstern lluy.
Lafayette Bustdine Suite M0 qgg,;;7s Suar 23 Detrat, \fichitan Pl226 Farmsneton lisils. \tahigan FRota
1 structure also, did you not?
2 A Yes.
i 3 7 And what in general terms did you come to understand the :
4 coils problem there to be?
5 4 Once they discovered the Diesel Generator Building was 6 settling, they went and took a f ew more borings around the 7 site and discovered that the same fill was existing 8 throughout the site and that's when they determined that 9 the Auxiliary Building, control tower area and the 10 electrical penetration areas, which were cantilevered of f 11 the main structure, were also going to be in trouble ,
12 because of the cettlement of the underlying material.
l 13 0 Did you come to learn that the, portion of the Auxiliary 14 Building was cantilevered? ,
15 A Yes.
I 16 0 What portion was that?
17 A As I j ust said, the control tower was cantilevered of f of i 18 the main Auxiliary Building and then the electrical i l
19 penetration areas were, wings I guess they were called, 20 were cantilevered of f of the control tower. ;
21 Q And approximately over what distance did the cantilevered 22 portion extend?
23 A From what I can recall, I think the electrical penetration 24 areas were approximately 90 to a hundred f eet long l 2
L.u: d Reporting Sert ic' Lafayette Runident 962 1976 nm %e$'rn lin Satte hm Sure 2x Detrat. \fichigan $822t> Farmington lislls \forhienn tanlR
I cantilevering off of the control tower and the control 2 tower is approximately 30, 40 feet cantilevering of f of 3 the main Auxiliary Building.
4 0 In your work with the NRC and prior to that with Sargent 5 and Lundy, were you exposed to any other structure 6 cantilevered to that extent?
7 N When I would design a structure for a building we would 8 never cantilever a structure like that. You were just 9 asking for trouble.
10 Q Ilow about when you were with the NRC, did you become 11 f amiliar with any other nuclear plant where a cantilevered 12 design had been used over an area equal in length to what 13 you've described for Hidland?
14 h I don' t know if it was over the same length. During the 15 ASLB hearing -- Dechtel tried to prove I was wrong at one 16 of the hearing sessions and they showed me a f ew other i
17 designs of other nuclear f a'cilities that had a similar 18 design as Midland.
19 ) Was there as much cantilevering in those designs as at 20 Itidland?
21 N I cannot recall.
22 0 I' d like to show you a document that's been previously l 23 introduced and admitted as DTX 396, and f or today I'd like i 24 to show you a portion of that, which is the June 25, 1979 :
I l
1
'3
" E "# "
Infayette Buildung 3tw80 %rthue tern llwv.
, Suite sw 962 1176 Su,ge ::o Detrat, \fichigan 48226 Farmington listis, \lichigan IMIR
1 submission by Consumers Power to the Nuclear Regulatory 2 Commission. It was part of the management cor rective 3 action reports, a series of those that I believe were 4 interim reports 1 through 6, submitted over the course of 5 1979. And first let me ask whether you generally had 6 occasion to review these submissions in the course of your 7 assignment to Midland?
8 h The ones that came in af ter I was involved with, yes.
i 9 This one, since it was June 25th,1979, was bef ore I 10 started with the Commission. I might have looked at it 11 f rom the files. I' m not sure.
12 Q If you take a moment to thumb through it, I' d be 13 interested, first, whether you had occasion to review 14 boring logs such as you'll find about two-thirds of the i
15 way through the document?
16 A Yes, I did. l l !
17 0 Did you have occasion to review boring logs for the i
18 Auxiliary Building?
19 A I'm sure I did. When you say review, I mean I just looked 20 at them to see what the material was.
21 0 That's right, that's what I' m trying to determine. Fr om 1
22 your review of the boring logs at the Auxiliary Building, ,
I 23 did you conclude or come to agree that there was in f act a ,
24 soils problem there? l Lafayette Buildine 3a940 %rthu r tern fluy.
Suste MO 9b2'liIb Suite 2:0 lkttmt, \fichigan 49226 Farmsneton lisllr \fichigan 1801R
p 1 h Yes.
2 Q At the time you joined the NRC did you also come to learn 3 that there was a propocal by Consumers Power to install 4 caissons at the outer extremities of the electrical 5 penetration areas f or the Auxiliary Building?
6 h Yes.
7 Q What was the purpose of the caissons, as you understood C it?
9 h As I understood it back then, it was to hold up the end of 10 the electrical penetration areas to keep them f rom 11 settling.
12 0 Was tho function of the caiscons to prop up the ends of 13 the building in effect?
14 A Yes.
l 15 ] From your review of the boring logs and the other i
16 information cubmitted by Consumers Power to the NRC, was 17 there any question as to the need f or some remedial 18 measure to try to prop up the ends ' f the Auxiliary 19 Building?
20 MR. LIBBY Are you asking if he had any 21 opinion back in 1979 or is this sitting here today?
- 22. BY NR. GOOLD:
l l l
23 O Sitting here today thinking back over the inf ormation that l 24 was made available to the NRC about the condition of the l
25 isfayette Buildine Luod Reportine Service , ,o y,,g ,,,, y Suste MO 962 1176 .su ite 23)
. lktroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmineton Halls, \lschigan 18018
1 structure.
2 A tio, I don' t think there was over a question.
l 3 10 Did Consumers Power ever make any presentation or submit 4 any analysis while you were involved in the project that 5 purported to chow there was no need to try to prop up the 6 structure?
7 h Not that I can recall. There might have been bef ore I got 8 involved. Once I got involved it was sort of going along 9 that we were going to do something under the Auxiliary 10 Building.
11 0 Was it a given that something had to be done to prop up 12 the structure?
13 Yes.
14 'O Ilow about the service water pump structure, did you have 15 occasion to review boring logo and other inf ormation about 16 the condition of the fill at that structure?
17 N Yes, I did.
18 Q And was a portion of that structure also cantilevered?
1 19 Yes, it was.
l 20 0 Uas there any question as to whether a need existed to try 21 to prop up the cantilevered portion of that building?
22 Im. LIBBY: Again, sitting here today as he 23 looks back?
24 tm. GCOLD: That's right.
I l.uzod Reporting Service , , , , ,,
ggay,gg, ygg,, _ , ,9 Sune MO 9b2 1II6 Sunte 2am iktmt. \lichigan 48226 Farminetm flills \lichoran 18n18
1 N Ho, there was never a question.
2 3Y MR. GOOLD:
3 0 Did Consumers Power ever take the position with the URC
, 4 that there was no need to try to fix the service water 5 pump structure?
6 N Not that I can recall.
7 0 we talked a littic bit about the Diesel Generator Building O and the Auxiliary Building and the service water pump 9 structure. Did you come to learn of soils problems 10 affecting any other structures at the site? ,
11 A Yes, the borated water storage tanks and the underground 12 piping. That was also in the same fill.
13 Q Where is the underground piping located?
l 14 h Throughout the plant area.
15 O Did you reach any conclusion as to wh' ether the fill was 16 satisf actory throughout the plant area? l i
17 4 Did I or did the NRC?
18 Did you first.
19 A Af ter I went to numerous meetings and Icarned what the 20 material was, yes, I was also concerned about the piping.
21 0 And did the piping extend throughout the plant ares?
l 22 A Let me answer that in two phases. The piping that the URC 23 was concerned about was the 0, I want to put that in 24 brackets, the safety-related piping, which only I think f 1
27
- 1. u d Reportin,e Sen-ice 3,g ,o y,,g , ,,,,,, ,,, ,_
lafayette Budding Suiu MO 962 l1?6 Sustr 2:0 Detroa \lichigan 18226 Farmineton lidis, \lichican m018
c -
1 ran two corridors. It went f rom the service water 2 building into the Auxiliary Duilding f or Unit 1 and Unit 3 2. Being an engineer, I was also concerned about the 4 regular piping and buried electrical, I forgot about the 5 electrical ducts in the ground, which were also 6 saf ety- rela ted, that were running f rom the service water 7 building to the Auxiliary Building, but there were 8 numerous other non saf ety-related pipes and electrical 9 ducts and various other utilities in the ground which were 10 also going to be hurt by the settlement of the fill, but 11 the HRC's charter does not allow you to get into those, 12 but being an engineer Consumers should have been concerned 13 about it, or somebody.
14 0 You mentioned also the borated water storage tanks. What ,
i 15 soils problem occurred there?
16 A From the borated water storago tanks there's also piping i 17 and electrical ducts going f rom them to the Auxiliary 18 Duilding. It was the same material that was under the 19 tanks 'that was underlying the whole site, it was the 20 uncompacted fill. I do remember one thing. The first 21 time I was on site though the tanks were not in place yet.
22 That was the only area where there were no structures on 23 the fill yet.
24 0 So subsequent to your getting involved with the !!idland I i
'8 Lafaytte Buddme Lu:od Reporting Service ,a y,g ,',,,, ,7
% use M O 962 11?b hate LM iktrois, \fschigan 18226 fannintron lidh, \fschiran 480lM
1 Project did you learn that the construction of the borated 2 water storage tanks had gone ahead?
l 3 h Yeah, it was sort of -- yeah, it had gone -- I'm not sure t 4 if they were under construction' when I was there or not.
5 I' m recalling. I do remember Gene Gallagher telling 6 Consumers, or whoever, not to build the tanks until they 7 learned the status of th'e material underneath of them.
4 8- 0 Did you learn that construction of the borated water 9 storage tanks had gone ahead anyway?
10 N Yes.
11 0 What happened to the tanks once they were built?
l 12 A Once they were built there was no problem, it's when they t
13 tried a hydro test on them, that's af ter you build the 14 tanks to fill them up with water and see if they leak, the 15 foundation got all cracked.
16 Q And did the f oundation have to be rebuilt?
l 17 A Ye s, it did.
l 18 0 I' d like to turn back f or a moment, Dr. Landsman, to the 19 remedial proposal for the Auxiliary Building as it was 20 presented by Consumers Power in 1980. And if you look 21 ,
back at the materials f rom DTX 395, in particular let me 22 show you the August 1979 submission by Consumers Power, 23 which has also been marked as PX CPC 1631. Let me place a i
- 24 copy of that in front of you and ask you to turn in i i
,9 igg,gg,gu,isn, Lu:od Reporting Sortice ,, y,,y,_ ,,
suiar h w 962 1176 suite ax) ?
Detrat. \fichieu 482.% Farm <neton lisflu \fichien mol8 ,
1 particular to the page that has Dates numbers along the 2 side, last four digits, 7867. It's about ten or 12 pages 3 into the document.
4 (Deposition Exhibit No. CPC 1G 31, 5 Letter f rom SH Howell to JG Keppler, 6 dated 8-10-79, was marked f or 7 identif ication. )
8 A 78677 9 SY MR. GOOLD:
10 0 That's right. Do you have that page in front of you?
11 A Yes, I do.
I 12 h Under the heading Auxiliary Building and M1 valve Pits, 13 down in the last complete sentence on the page --
14 % I'm not on the same page as you are I think. Am I?
i 15 !!R. LIDDY: Jim, your microphone just fell 16 off.
17 DY MR. GOOLD:
1 18 Q Sorry, Dr. Landsman. Turn back 20 pages please.
l 19 A All right.
20 0 There's a discussion generally of the proposed remedial 21 measures for the electrical penetration areas of the i 22 Auxiliary Building in that paragraph, and then down at the 23 bottom of the page there's a sentence "These caissons i
24 shall have suf ficient capacity to support approximately 30 lafayette Bmiding
- "? ' ' J'L9 80 %rthuentern liwy.
kate hw 962 Elib Swte 2.v ik trott \fschican n2.% Farmmetan IInlir \fschigan mola
1 one-half of the dead and live loads of the electrical 2 penetration rooms with the remaining one-half being 3 supported by the control tower." Do you soo that?
4 h Yes.
5 2 Did you become aware that one aspect of the caisson 6 proposal for the Auxiliary Building was that the control 7 tower fill would be required to support additional loads 8 by virtue of the design?
9 lin. LIBBY: Just a second, Dr. Landsman. I i 10 don' t have a problem with the question but I do have a 11 problem with you showing him a document that was written 12 1979 when he's already testified he didn' t become involved 13 until 1981 and hasn' t been able to ' identify it. If you 14 I understand my obj ection. I don' t understand why you need 15 this document to ask him that quection.
16 lin. GOOLD: Your objection is noted. ;
17 3Y !!R. GOOLD:
18 ) The question, Dr. Landsman, is whether you became aware of 19 that aspect of the caisson proposal for the Auxiliary 20 Building?
21 N I think one of the first meetings I went to in Usshington, 22 it might have not been '81, it might have been 1980, as I 23 stated I' m not sure exactly when the first time I got .
24 really involved, wac at one of those meetings I might have 31
"? Amt0 Vorthurstern fluy.
lafayette Budding Suite MO 96211Ih Suste 23)
Iktras, \fwhigan 88:26 Farmineton Ildh. \fwhigan W)18
1 bcGn mcd3 tware cf the caicson rcmcdici fix and the 2 question you asked me was that the control tower was going 3 to support more of the load?
4 0 That's correct. The question is did you become aware of !
5 that an one aspect of the proposal to prop up the G Auxiliary Building?
7 A I can' t recall.
8 Q Did you becomo aware of questions as to whether the 9 caisson preposal would overstress the fill beneath tho 10 control tower?
11 A That I became aware of. :
l 12 0 And did that become a significant question with roLrect to 13 the f easibility of the caisson proposal?
14 h From what I remember of the caisson proposal, I think once 15 you put the caissons on there I think they were having ;
16 trouble with the seismic rorponse of the building. I' m 17 not so sure it was the fill beneath the building that gave l
18 them problems. I think, from what I recall, that when you 19 rigidly support, rigidly supported the ends of the l 20 electrical penetration areas they had some problem with 21 the seismic response of the remaining portion of the 22 building. You had one end that was rigidly supported and !
23 the other end was going to bounce around in an earthquake.
24 I think that's why they got rid of the caisson proposal.
i l
f.u:od Reportine Service ,9 y
?
lafayette Bustdtne Shoe hw 962 1176 saar 2x Iktmt, \fichigan M2:6 Farmsneton llutin, \fahrenn MnlR
y .
i 1 0 When you say they got rid of the caisson proposal, you' re 4 2 ref erring to a decision by Consumers Power?
3 A Bechtel and Consumers, whoever was designing it.
4 0 I' d like to show you a document that's been previously 5 marked as PX CPC 1643, a thick stack of materials f rom a 6 May 1981 meeting discussing among other things remedial 7 proposals.
8 (Deposition Exhibit No. CPC 1643, 9 Meeting minutes of May 5-7, 1981 10 meeting with NRC Staf f, was marked ,
11 for identification.)
12 BY MR. GOOLD:
l 13 O And I'll place that in f ront of you, Dr. Landsman, and ask 14 you to turn to page the last four digits are 3853 and 15 there are several photocopies of slides presented at the 16 meeting and if you look first at the cover sheet of the j 17 memorandum you'll see that it was the May 1981 meeting at 10 which I believe a change in the remedial plans f or the l
19 Auxiliary Building f rom the caisson proposal to something 20 different was presented, and then further on, to the pages 21 I've asked you to look at, there are these slides headed 22 NRC Concerns. And if you tak'e a moment to look those .
23 over, I wonder if that ref reshes your recollection as to I 4
24 questions that arose concerning the impact of the caisson I
i 33 Luzod Reporting Service ,o y, ,,, y gg,,,, ug,,
Suite hw 9 6 " ~ l l ** 6 h ar 2.M iktmt, \fschigan Pl226 Fawneem Hdh. \fichnean mais
1 1 proposal on control tower fill?
2 11R. LIDnY: You' re just asking him whether l 3 these notes, which appear to me to be CPC notes, refreshes 4 his recollection at this point in time? l 5 !!R. GOOLD: As to the subject generally, l
6 that's correct.
7 A I think this reenf orces what I said bef ore. If you go to 8 the first page you told me to look at, 853, the botton ;
9 bullet says that "Additional loading on control tower due 10 to change of cupport condition f or electrical penetration 11 area", that's what I was ref erring to as the problem they 12 had with the seismic, the design of it, of the caisconc.
, 13 BY !!R. GOOLD:
14 j Let me leaf ahead f or a moment, if I may. The next bullet 15 on the next page, can you tell us what that relates to the 16 "Dending eff ect of the electrical penetration area and 17 consequent redistribution of load on caissens"?
18 11R. LIBBY: Again, Jim, obviously these 19 aren' t his notes. You' re asking him what he believes it 20 means sitting here today?
\
21 HR. GOOLD: I'm asking him to look those 22 over to ref resh his recollection as to the cubject mattero 23 generally. i 24 f!R. LIDBY: Okay. l
.utod Reportine Sersice , ,,
Isfayette Buildsnt Sate hm 962 E lib Snte ;0 (Hmt. \fschigan Mt2.% Farmsnet<*e llulls, \fuhutan 3018
1 k Right offhand I can' t think of what it means.
2 BY l*Jt. GOOLD:
3 0 You learned, Dr. Landsman, that a caisson proposal had 4 been put f orward by Consumers Power to prop up the 5 Auxiliary Building about the time you became involved with 6 the Ilidland Proj ect! is that correct?
7 A Yes.
8 0 And that would be in approximately early 19807 9 fin. LIBBY: Obj ection. The question has 10 been asked and answered and that was leading as well 11 because you' re suggesting what time he Icarned about it.
12 DY 11R. GOOLD:
13 0 Just to set a time f rame, would that be approximately 14 i correct, Dr. Landsman?
15 A It had to be af ter December '79 when I started at the 16 Commission. I have no idea af ter that when it was. l 17 0 Did you come to learn what Consumers Power or Bechtel was 18 doing to finalis:e the caisson proposal?
19 A No.
20 ) Over the course of 1980 were you given any inf ormation as 21 to what was being done to complete the proposal to install 22 ,
caissons at the Auxiliary Building?
23 A I presume they were working on the computer program to 24 show what they knew how loading conditions were, which was 35 Lu od Reportsne Sers uce , ,o 9, ,,,,m,,
lAlG)rfle OMidmg Suar Mo 962 11Ib Nour :b)
Ik trat. \fschigan kU2n Farmineron flulls, \lwhican kvlR
1- what I- proviously said is what I thought what the problem 2 was with the caisson design.
3 0 Uere you given any information as to the progress or lack :
i of progress that was being made in designing a way to prop
_4 ,
i ,.
5 up the Auxiliary Building?
6 4 tio.
f 7 ) Let me take the exhibit back just so we have lecs clutter, t
8 MR. LIBBY: Could we go of f the record f or t 9 just a second?
, 10 MR. GOOLD: Let's take a short recess here. l; 11 MR. RICCI: I'm ending the tape at 47 l 12 minutes and 53 seconds. End of tape number one.
13 (A brief recess was held during 14 the proceedings.) {
l 15 BY !!R. GOOLD: ,
L 2
l [
- 16 0 Dr. Landeman, I'd like you to take a look at a document I l 17 placed before you and which has previously been marked as (L 18 PX !!RC 271, and if you take a moment to look it over f n
19 you'll see it ref ers to an appeals meeting of August 1980 i i
20 regarding additional explorations and testing of !!idland j i i 21 Plant fill and you are indicated on the enclosure to have i 22 been one of the attendees, and if you turn back to page 1 l
, i I 23 you'll note that the document ref era to a meeting with ; l 24 Consumers Power "to hear a request f or relief f rom an imC
[
I i l
i i f.uz d Reporting Service g ,, ,,
lafayette Bwidin.e kite h10 962'I!'b Swtr 23) l
[Hmt, \lakiaan 4822n Famington lidis, \lichuran 58018
I 1 staff position requiring additional boringa and tects of 2 the plant fill. "
3 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 271, 4 Summary of Appeals Neoting of 5 August 29, 1980, regarding additional 6 explorations and testing of Midland 7 Plant fill, was marked f or 8 identifica tion. )
9 3Y HR. GOOLD: ;
10 ) Did you bacone generally aware during 1980 that a request 11 had been made by the NRC staf f for additional tests to be 12 conducted in the fill at Midland?
13 'N Yes.
14 ) And what did you learn as to Consumers Power's pocition 15 with respect to that request?
16 h I think there was a big argument whetber they wanted 17 additional borings or not.
18 ) Let me direct your attention to page 3. The third 19 paragraph states "The borings near the Servico Water 20 Structure and Auxiliary Building are nooded to permit 21 testing of undisturbed samples in order to estimate pile 22 and caisson :tspacity. The field load tests described by 23 Dr. Daviscon will also be needed. However, the staff 24 noted that it is normal engineering practice to analyze i
37 -
, Luzod Reportine Service , _ , , i har rao 962 1 Iib Sune L%
IMrat. Whigan sCM Farmnnutm IInlis Whnean mais
i 1 pile and caisson capacities based on foundation aaterial 2 properties before installing the piles and caissono in the 3 field. The additional boringa and testing are also needed 4
4 to establish properties of the plant fill in order to l 5 estimate negative skin friction and this additional drag 6 loading on the piles during plant lif e. "
f 7 Did you become aware of a staff pocition 8 that additional borings were needed to evaluate the 9 caisson propocal at about this time?
10 MR. LInBY: As set f orth in that paragraph 11 you just read? :
I 12 MR. GOOLD: That's right.
. 13 A I don' t know if it's because of this paragraph exactly 14 because I was aware that the staf f wanted additional 15 borings on site to botter evaluate the material. ;
16 SY MR. GOOLD:
1 17 0 And did you lecen that consumers Power was unwilling to do l
18 those borings? ,
19 MR. L TDBY: Obj ecti on. The question is 20 argumentative. [
21 DY. MR. GOOLD:
i I
22 0 was an explanation ever given you as to why consumers ;
t 23 Power was unwilling to do additional testing of the fill?
24 An explanation by the licencee or --
f l I
1 l i
lafayene Buddiae I'ned Reportine Sernier ya ,, ,,
i N0or hM '9b2 !!?6 har :50 \
fletms \fschsgan 48:26 Farmsnerae lidh, \fschigan mn]M
f-1 . ') that's right, by consumers Power. ;
2 h Not that I can recall. ;
i 3 Q Do you recall approximately hw long there was a 4 controversy concerning Consumers Power's position on not 5 doing additional testing of the fill?
I 6 h It seemed quite awhile.
7 0 tihat impact did that have on -- let me start the question 0 again.
9 Dr. Landsman, what impact did that 10 contreversy have on moving forward with the remedial work 11 at the site?
12 !!R. LTDnY: obj ection, lack of foundation.
13 A I think had the borings been taken initially the NRC and 14 their consultants would have been able to analy=e the data f i
15 sooner, i l
16 DY MR. GOOLD:
i 17 0 3
Do you recall approximately how many borings were i 18 requested f er the plant area?
i 19 N No, I do not. 1 20 ) Did you ever come to understand why Consumcro Power was !
21 opposing taking additional borings at the site?
22 A Did I ever come to understand or do I have a -- you'll 23 have to rephrase the question. l
[
r l 24 0 Did you ever come to underctand what the basic f or l i
l 34" '
Isfayrne kidne Ln d Reporting Service 3, w \ ,,,, g u ,,,,,,, ,gu ,
Suar Mn 962 11Ib k re ::M ,
Detrea. \lkkiru et .% Farmnetwo listis \inkuen tsnia t
I i
1 Consumers Power' c position was about ref ucing to do 2 additional borings? !
3 A I had my own opinion. [
4 0 tihat was your opinion?
5 N That I think it was the staff's opinion also that they i
~
6 were going to be af raid of what they were going to find 7 had they taken additional borings, meaning the fill being --
8 meaning that thero would be very uncompacted layers of 9 fill underlying the plant area.
10 0 subsequent to this controversy over whether Consumers l 11 Power was willing to do additional borings, did you come 12 to learn that the caisson plan had been abandoned by 13 Consumers Power?
14 A I'm not sure of the time f rame, but I know they abandoned i 15 the caisson plan. :
15 0 Let me ask you to look again ut PX CPC 1643, the minutos i 17 of the May 5 through 7,1981 meeting on planc fill i
18 remedial issues. And if you'll turn firct to the third 19 page you'll note your name among the liet of attendees and 20 then if you'll turn to page 41 of the memorandum headed 21 Auxiliary Building - Remedial Measures, and if you take a l 22 coment to look that over I'd like to ask you some i
23 questions about your recollection of the new remedial 24 proposal that was eventually put forward by Consumers i
l :
40 lafayrtte ILaldme
- "" E*'""# " ' '
l'nin %rthestern flu)
Saar Mo 962 11Ib suar 2:0 '
Iktras, \fwhigan c % Farmmeron lidis \lakien 43018
O i
1 Power. So while you do that I'll suggest that the camera 2 stop.
3 3 MR. RICCI: We' re taking a pause at 7 ;
4 minutes and 31 seconds.
5 (A brief discussion was held ,
6 of f the record.) ,
7 HR. RICCI: Going back on the record our 8 clock shows 7 minutes and 31 seconds, our f rame clock 9 shows ten minutes and 35 seconds. -
10 BY MR. COOLD:
11 0 Dr. Landsman, do you recall attending the May 1901 meeting i 12 at which a new remedial proposal for the Auxiliary l i 13 Building was put forward? [
14 A Yes.
15 0 This was May of 1981, more than a year af ter you had come f, r
16 to be involved in the project. Did you como to any 17 understanding as to why a new remedial proposal was being i
18 developed more than a year af ter your first contact with 19 the Midland Plant? i i
20 MR. LIBBY: Objection, lack of f oundation. l i
21 I think also the question has been asked and ancwered. ;
. 22 A I think that's what I originally stated, that they were !
23 having trouble with the rigid support at the end of thu ;
1 I 24 EPA versus the fle:tible support of the control tower. !
I 41
- * "# 3Mp) %nhurnorn llwy >
Lafayetre ikildsne
& ate hw 962*llIb kre LM ;
Detrost, \takissa ut?.M Farm <neron Ildts \lvkitan 43018
-_ _ . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _t
i 1 'BY !!R. GOOLD:
i 2 O Did you come to have any question in your own mind by thic ;
3 time as to whether it was going to be possible to in f act i 4 fix the soils problem at the Auxiliary Building?
5 N Uo.
6 ? Did you subsequently come to have questions as to whether 7 Consumers Power would be capable of curing the problem?
r 8 N Are you referring to design or construction?
9 0 nell, let's focus on construction first. Did you cone to 10 have questions in your own mind as time went on about 11 whether consumers power was capable of curing the probicm?
12 A Enowing the history of the plant and the numerous !
i 13 ! construction problems they had I had questions in my mind [
I 14 whether they' d be able to carry out a major remedial soils 15 fix.
16 0 Here you f amiliar with any other nuclear plant at which 17 underpinning of a saf ety-related structure was attempted?
t 18 N Uo.
19 ) In your background as a civil engineer were you f amiliar 20 with any structure, whether nuclear plant or other, where 21 underpinning of the complexity of the Midland Project was 22 successf ully completed?
23 itR. LIBDY: I'm going to ask you to define 24 which fix are you talking about right now, as f ar as lafayette ElwWe 3tmo %rthur tem fluy
.%te nm 962 1176 swee ;3)
(krat, \twhigan AC:n Farmnernn Ildh. \fwhisen mala
I 1 complexityl the caisson fix or this fix or I believe there 2 was another fix?
3 MR. COOLD: The underpinning of the 4 Auxiliary Building.
5 MR. LIuBY: I think the question is 6 ambiguouc.
7 6 Uas your gunstion in regards to_ nucicar plants?
8 BY MR. GOOLD:
l 9 D Let's f ocus on nuclear plants. Are you aware of any 10 saf ety-related structure at a nuclear plant where 11 underpinning of the kind attempted at the Midland Project 12 was successf ul?
13 There was never any underpinning at a nuclear plant that I 14 know of besides Midland.
15 0 Are you aware of any other structures outside of the 16 nucicar plant construction area where underpinning of the 17 complexity of the kind involved at Midland was 10 successf ully completed?
19 h Complexity is a hard word to define. I know they did 20 numerous underpinning j obs f or all the subways being 21 constructed in the east and they carried them of f without 22 having major buildings collapse on them.
I 23 0 now about structures with the electrical connections and 24 other kinds of engineering aspects of a nuclear power 43 f.n d Reporting Sersict g , 9, ,,
lafayette ikidsne
,%w hw 962 ilih kre 6,5 (Mrat. \laksu 48.2 Farmenetm listls, \taken W18
4 1 plant, are you f amiliar with anything comparable to that 2 being underpinned?
3 A Usually when they underpin a ~ regular building you' re just 4 worried about the plaster cracking. You don' t have all 5 the saf ety-related instrument sensing lines and electrical 6 lines running through the building that you' re concerned 7 about that you do not have on a regular building.
8 0 Let me direct you back to CPC 1643, the third page of the i
9 discussion of the remedial proposal for the Auxiliary 10 Building. There's a heading NRC Staff's Feedback Af ter 11 Caucus. . Do you see that?
12 A Yes.
~
13 Q And with ref erence to the Auxiliary Building the 14 memorandum states "The fix was so conceptual there was not 15 much substance in the presentation. However, staf f feels 16 there should be no significant snags in the proposed fi:c. "
17 Do you recall that, the discussion along those lines 18 following the presentation by Consumers Power of the new 19 remedial proposal?
20 MR. LIBBY: At this meeting?
l 21 MR. GOOLD: At this meeting, yes.
22 A No.
23 BY HR. GOOLD:
24 0 If you look back a little earlier in the discussion about 1
i 44 lafayette Building .M9to %rthurstern lluy.
Suite MO 962 1176 Spie ggo Detroit,11ichigan 48:26 Farmington Ilills, \lichigan 180lR
1 the remedial measure, there's a statement on page 41 down 2 in the bottom paragraph "So f ar, we have completed only a 3 preliminary analysis of the total pier concept. " And then 4 on the top of the next page the statement is also made 5 "Right now we are not in a position to say how big the 6 pier will be." Do you recall learning that the remedial 7 plan presented at the May 1981 meeting was still in its 8 preliminary stages?
9 4 From reading the three pages, I have that understanding 10 that it was very preliminary, 11 2 And did you subsequently learn that the proposal put 12 forward at the May 1981 meeting was withdrawn by Consumers 13 Power?
14 h You' re talking about the proposal for the pier?
15 0 That's cor rect.
16 A well, I think it's the same pier. They just extended it '
17 underneath the whole electrical penetration areas and the 18 control tower. It j ust grew.
19 0 And is the remedial proposal as it grew what became the i
20 proposal that was finally attempted at Midland? j 21 A Yes.
I i 22 Q Now was there any NRC direction or order that required 23 Consumers Power to expand the pier concept that we were 24 talking about as having been presented in the May 1981 45 Lmd Reporting Service 3,,o ,,k,,,,,,,,,u,_
lafayette Building Suite Mo 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit, \fichigan 18226 Farmmeton Ilnlis. \lichigan 18018
1 meeting?
2 11R. LIDBY: I'm going to obj ect again f or 3 lack of foundation at this point. He's already testified 4 he was member of Region III and not the NRR. He was 5 interested in design.
6 3Y MR. COOLD:
7 0 Are you aware of any URC directive or order that required 8 the pier concept proposed in the !!ay 1981 meeting to 9 become the f ull underpinning plan that was later adopted?
10 A No, I' m not.
11 I' d like to show you next a document that's been marked as 12 PX MRC 317.
13 (Deposition Exhibit No. URC 317, 14 Letter f rom Darl Hood to Consumers l
15 Power Company, dated 2-5-82, was 16 was marked f or identification.)
17 BY MR. GCOLD:
k 18 Q Take a moment to look this over, Dr. Landsman. You' ll see ,
19 it ref ers to an October 1981 meeting and you' re indicated 20 to have been one of the attendees. And if you look back 21 at the first page you'll see that the cover memorandum 22 refers to the fact that the meeting was held to discuss 23 the design and construction aspects of the underpinning 24 plan beneath the Auxiliary Building. Do you recall l
46
" I' " '
min %rthuestern lluy Infayette ihtident Suite MO 962 117b Suite 2;y)
Detr<st. \fichigan 18226 Farmoneton llull<. \lichigan 18018
1 attending the meeting in October 1981 at which an 2 underpinning plan was presented?
3 MR. LIBBY: Excuse me. Could I have that 4 question read back to me please?
5 (The requested por tion of the 6 record was . read back as follows:
7 "Q. I' d like to show you next a document 8 that's been marked PX NRC 317. Take a i
9 moment to look this over, Dr. Landsman.
10 You'll see it ref ers to an October 1981 11 meeting and you' re indicated to have 12 been one of the attendees. And if you 13 look back at the first page you'll see 14 that the cover memorandum ref ers to 15 the f act that the meeting was held to !
16 discuss the design and construction l
17 aspects of the underpinning plan 18 beneath the Auxiliary Building. Do you 19 recall attending the meeting in October 20 1981 at which an underpinning plan was j 21 presented?")
i 22 MR. LIDBY: Okay. I guess we' re still 23 talking about the same underpinning plan he's already l
24 testified tol is that correct?
47 Lu:od Reporting Service y ,n ,,,,,,,
lxfaytte Building Suite MO 962 1176 S, age gao Detroit, Stichigan #226 Farmington lluth, \lichigan 18018
1 !!R. GOOLD: Well, it takes a moment to look 2 it over. I believe we'll find that this is the meeting at 3 which the outlines of what became the final underpinning 4 plan were presented.
5 MR. LIBBY: Okay. With that understanding I 6 don' t have any obj ections.
7 A Yes, I remember attending the meeting.
8 3Y !!R. GOOLD:
9 2 Now at this time what was your role with respect to the 10 Midland Proj ect, Dr. Landsman?
11 A I think in October '81 I was full time Midland but I' m not 12 sure.
13 0 What would be your duties with ref erence to the !!idland 14 Plant at this time frame?
15 A If I was in charge, I was in charge of the remedial soils 16 work. ;
17 ) Did you also participate in the preparation of something 18 known as a systematic assessment of licensee perf ormance?
i 19 h You'll have to give me the number. I' ve been involved 20 with numerous SALP's.
I 21 0 Let me show you a document that's been marked as PX NRC l
l 22 j 13, Dr. Landsman, and if you look it over you'll see that i
! 23 it's dated July 19, 1982, and ref ers on the cover letter 24 to a syctematic assessment of licensee performance l
l Lmd Reporting Service ,o9 , ,,
lafayette thuldine Suite MO 962.I176 Suite 22o Iktroit \fichigan 48226 Farmineton flills, \lichigan 18018
L
- 1 covering the period July 1,,1980 through June 30, 1981.
l 2 MR. LIBBY: Uhat is the number on that?
3 MR. GOOLD: 11RC - 13 .
4 MR. LIBBY: Jim, where is that in your i
'5 stack? Is it before this?
l 6 3Y HR. GOOLD:
7 Q Dr. Landsman, can you identify PX 11RC 13 as a copy of the 8 systematic assessment of licensee perf ormance for !!idland 9 prepared by the 11RC in 1982?
10 \ Yes.
11 2 What role did you have in the preparation of this?
12 N I think I either wrote or helped prepare the section on 13 soils and f oundation.
14 Q Could you take a moment to look that over, Dr. Landsman?
15 4 The section on soils and f oundations?
16 0 Yes.
17 HR. LIBBY: Just so I' m sure I' m on the 18 right page, what is the Bates number on that section, if 19 you please, near the end numbers down at the bottom?
20 TH E WITNESS : 229.
21 MR. LIBBY: 229, thank you.
22 DY MR. GOOLD:
l 23 0 Dr. Landsman, first, can you tell us what the f unction of 24 the systematic assessment of licensee perf ormance is?
49
- 1. d Reporting Service ,m 9, ,,,, , .
Lafayette Buildmg Suite MO 962.!)i6 suite 2:o Detroit. \fichigan M226 Farmington lidh, \lichigan mol8
I h From an NRC perspective or f rom this section's 2 per spectiv e?
3 Q Prom an NRC overall perspective, what is the purpose of 4 this program?
5 4 In my opinion it's to give each of the licensees
~
6 throughout the country a report card on how well they' re 7 doing during the past 12 months or 18 months.
8 Q And you were responsible for preparing the report card I
9 with respect to soils at Midland?
10 A Yes, I was.
11 ) I notice on page N 11229 the statement is made "Since 1978 12 the soils settlement issues have been paramount in the 13 amount of attention by the NRC to this licensee", and then 14 it continues in that paragraph that "Inspite of this i
15 attention overy inspection involving regional based 16 inspectors and addressing soils settlement issues has 17 resulted in at least one significant item of 18 noncompliance. " Was that your experience at the Midland 19 Plant?
20 A Yes.
i 21 2 And during this time the underpinning work had not yet 22 ! begun; is that correct?
23 4 In J uly ' 82, I' m not sure.
24 0 no, I' m f ocusing on a time period covered by the SALP 50 Lu:od Reporting Service ,o , , , , ,,
Lafayette Budding Suite MO 962 1176 suute 23)
Detroit, \iichigan IR226 Farmineton flith. \lichigan 18018
4 1
1 r epor t. I 2 4 Oh, through June 1981.
3 ) During that time period the underpinning work had not yet 4 begun; is that correct?
1 5 N That's correct.
6 ) Now I notice also that on page N 11227 under the heading 7 Summary of Results, soils and f oundations, number two in 8 the list, is given a rating of three. Do you see that?
9 A Yes, I do.
10 ) What does a three indicate in the context of this 11 systematic assessment of licensee performance?
12 % Minimal perf ormance.
13 0 Did this rating of three for the period before the 14 underpinning work began raise any question as to whether 15 the underpinning work was likely to succeed?
16 MR. LIBBY: Obj e ction. The question is 17 argumentative as to likely to succeed, it's also leading.
18 A As I stated before, I had some doubts whether they' d be 19 able to construct the underpinning adequately. I' m not 20 cure if this is the first SALP f or the plant, which I 21 think it is. This was also I think used as the basis to 22 j put me on the plant f ull time, but I'm not sure.
23 k3YMR. GOOLD:
I 24 p Can you explain what you mean by your being put on the 51 Lu:od Reporting Sereier go \.,,9,,,, ,,,,
Lafayette Building Suite MO 962 1176 suser em Detroit, \fichiean 48226 Farmington Hdl<, \fichigan 2018
1 plant f ull time, what happened?
2 A I was just assigned to Midland soils whereas Midland was 3 just one of my plants and I was doing inspection work at-4 other utilities.
5 2 And'approximately when did you begin having a full time 6 assignment to Midland?
7 4 I don' t know. I can' t recall.
8 0 Would it be about the time the underpinning work was to 9 begin for the Auxiliary Building?
10 A I can't recall.
11 0 If you could give us a brief overview, Dr. Landsman, as 12 the underpinning work began and you were assigned f ull 13 time to it, did you find any improvement in the quality of 14 the construction work compared to the time period f or 15 which Consumers was given a three in this first S AL P 16 repor t? !
17 MR. LIBBY: Excuse me. Over the rest of the ,
18 time of his involvement with the project?
19 MR. GOOLD: That's right.
20 A I think it got proceedingly worse. 3 1
l 21 'Y B MR. GOOLD:
l 22 Q I' d like to f ocus on the 1982 year, and a series of 23 incidents which appear to have arisen during that year, s
24 and I' d first like to direct your attention to a document
(
52 1.u : d Reporting Service ,o .,,g,,,, ,,
lafayette lhaalding Suite h30 962 III6 Sr ste ZM I)etrmt, \fichigan IR226 Farmineron llalls, \lichican ulol8
1 which has been marked as PX CPC 964, Dr. Landsman, an 2 April 6,1982 letter signed by !!r Horn of Consumers 3 Power. Take a moment to look at that.
4 (Deposition Exhibit No. CPC 96 4, 5 Letter of DE Horn, dated 4-6-82, 6 was marked f or identification.)
7 3Y MR. GOOLD:
8 ) You'll note that it ref ers to an NRC inspection which took 9 place f rom February 17 through February 19,1982, and it 10 ref ers under the heading General Items to a question 11 you' re indicated to have asked about a breach of abandoned 12 duct bank. Do you see that, Dr. Landsman?
13 A Ye s.
14 0 Can you tell us what this incident relates to?
i 15 4 Yeah. They were installing piling around a duct bank and 16 they accidentally drilled through it. Just as it says 17 here.
18 Q What was the piling being installed f or, if you know?
l 19 A At the time I don' t think I knew but I think this piling i
20 was for a pit that they had to make down to one of the 21 duct banks. l 22 MR. LIDBY: Just so I'm clear, are you 23 asking him just what this document says?
24 !!R. GOCLD: No. I'm asking the witness for 53 us d Reporting Service \, ,,, ,,
lafayette Buildinz Suite MO 962 1II6 Suite 220 Detroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmineron lidis. .\fichigan 18018
I what he learned about this incident.
2 !!n. LIBBY: Other than what he's reading of f 3 this document?
', 4 MR. GOOLD: Based on whatever he needs to 5 tell- us what happened.
6 3Y MR. GOOLD:
I 7 Q Dr. Landsman, did you subsequently learn whether the duct 8 bank was hit by accident?
9 A I'm having trouble f ocusing on which duct bank this really 10 is.
11 0 Was there more than one incident involving duct banks 12 being hit by drilling activities?
13 A That's what I'm having a hard time recalling. I know 14 there was one duct bank that was hit but it wasn' t 15 abandoned. That's why I'm having trouble f ocusing on this '
(
16 one. I can' t recall if there was two of them. I'm sure l 17 you know better than I do.
4 18 ) Over the cource of 1982 were there a number of occasions 19 in which drilling activities hit underground 20 installations?
21 A Yes.
l 2? Q And did that raise questions as to the quality of the 23 construction work being done at the site?
24 A I don' t know if the quality of construction is the right --
0 Lafayette Building Luzod Reporting Service ,,\.,,,g,,,,,,,, _
suae sw 962 1176 suste 220 Iktroit, \fichigan 18226 Farmington Ilills. \fichican 18018
1 2 Did the incidents raise any questions about the remedial 2 measures being done for the soils work at Midland?
3 MR. JENSEN : Did these incidents raise 4 questions in the witness' mind?
5 MR. GOOLD: That's correct.
6 3Y MR. GOOLD:
7 ) What did they indicate to you?
8 A They indicated that the Bechtel Power Corporation did not 9 know what or where anything was in the ground since they 10 kept drilling through things.
11 0 Do you recall approximately how many times these incidents 12 occurred?
13 p No.
14 ) Did these incidents raise any question in your mind about 15 whether the remedial measures could be successf ul at the 16 site?
17 MR. LIBBY: Obj ection, asked and answered.
18 A As I said before, I had doubts even bef ore they were I
19 drilling into things on the site whether they could pull 20 of f the underpinning adequately without cracking the 21 Auxiliary Building or the service water structure any more ;
22 than they were.
I 23 ,DY MR. GOOLD:
I 24 Q Did you subsequently learn whether additional cracking 55 lafayette Building 30810 %rthurstern fluy.
Suste h30 962.IJi6 Sunge o Detroit, \fichigan -18226 Farmineton lidis, \lichigan 43018
1 took place at the Auxiliary Building and the service water 2 pcmp structure?
3 A Well, the service water pump structure we never got under
/ 4 bef ore the plant was -- before construction was suspended.
5 The Auxiliary Building, I don' t think there were more 6 cracks than we started with, but the underpinning was only 7 around half done.
8 ) I see. I'd like to ask you next, Dr. Landsman, about an 9 incident concerning the status of cable pulling f or the 10 instrumentation connected with the underpinning. Did you 11 participate in discussions with Consumers Power and 12 Bechtel personnel concerning the status of the 13 1 underpinning instrumentation?
l 14 IIR. LIBDY: Obj ection, leading.
15 A Yes, I did, h
16 DY MR. GOOLD:
1 17 Q What was the occasion f or this subject to come up?
l 10 A There was a phone call, and I can' t recall exactly why the 19 Phone call was made.
20 p What was the subject matter generally of the discussion?
I 21 A The subject matter back then was we had a big meeting in 22 Washington and said something to the ef fect f rom this -- '
23 in view of all the problems they were having on site we 24 said f rom this day forward overything will be 1
0 I'u: d Reporting Service 3,mg 9,g , ,, ,,
lxhyette Bmiding Saite faa 962 1176 Smte 220 Detrat. \fichigan m226 Farmineton llulls. 11ichien 18018
1 saf ety- related. They were doing a lot of work on site, 2 remedial soil -- in the remedial soils area. Some of it 3 they considered saf ety-related, meaning they had a 4 f ull-blown OA program on it, and other work which they 5 considered nonsaf ety-related, which there was no GC even 6 in it, and it was those items mostly that they were 7 getting into trouble with drilling holes.
8 So we had a meeting in Washington, I don' t i
9 recall the da te, and which I had them call in Washington, 10 and the final line f rom the NRC at the meeting was f rom 11 this day forward overything will be saf ety-related to do 12 with remedial soils work. This phc .e call was a result of 13 that meeting and that statement and it was one of the 14 calls we had to j ustify -- let me back up.
15 At the meeting we said that f or those items 16 that are under construction or almost a complete you don' t 17 have to backfit quality assurance requirements f or and f or 18 those items that are in the f uture you will be required to 19 have quality assurance requirements in place. So I think 20 this phone call was made to me in the region to give the 21 okay for those items that were well underway or finished 22 to say you didn' t have to backfit quality assurance l
23 requirements f or them.
24 0 Uhat inf ormation were you given as to the status of the i
57 Lutod Reporting Sers ice ,, 9, , ,,
IAfGJfilf Suilding Suite MO 962 1I?b suae 2:0 th troit, \fichigan 18226 Farmuneton llolls. \ftchigan 18018
1 underpinning instrumentation when this question arose?
2 A I think it became to be known, the words I can' t recall, I 3 think it was essentially a complete, is what I was told 4 over the phone with a f ew other people, which led me to 5 believe that it was almost finished.
6 0 Did you subsequently learn whether the underpinning 7 instrumentation work was in f act as f ar along as you were 8 led to believe?
9 A The instrumentation work f or the underpinning had j ust 10 .
begun when I came to the site the following week.
11 Q Did you reach any view as to whether you had been misled 12 by the statements made to you concerning the status of the 13 underpinning work? l 14 h Yes, I did.
l 15 0 What was that conclusion?
l 16 A I thought I had been.
l 17 1 And was it subsequently documented that statements along 18 the lines you have indicated were in f act made?
19 A Yes.
l L 20 Q Did an NRC investigation turn up those documents?
l 21 h Yes.
22 0 tihat impact did that incident have on the Unc staf f with 23 r espect to confidence in Consumers Power pulling of f the 24 remedial soils work?
0 Luzod Reporting Service , ,g y,,, ,,,,,,
ggay,,,, guas,,,
Suar Mo 962 1176 Surg, 2;%)
Iktrmt, \fichigan 48226 Farmintron lidh. \lichigan 18018
1 h Confidence isn' t the- right word either.
2 0 Uhat impact did this incident have, Dr. Landsman?
3 h Speaking. f or myself, I j ust thought f rom that day forward 4 we have to be very caref ul on what was said to who and 5 what and that it was documented real good.
6 ) Did you experience problems getting accurate inf ormation 7 f rom Consumers Power concerning soils work at the site?
8 MR. LIBBY: I' m going to obj ect on your 9 statement about Consumers Power unless you lay a 10 foundation f or the prior statement coming f rom a Consumers 11 Power employee.
12 Im. JENSEN: By "you", you mean the witness?
13 MR. GOOLD: Dr. Landsman.
14 A Let me clarify that. I think I can. I had numerous 15 problems on site receiving documents that I asked f or, 16 whether it was f rom a nechtel person or a consumers 17 person, whoever I happened to be dealing with at the time. i 18 I wasn' t the only inspector that was having trouble. It 19 seemed like all the inspectors who were on site were 20 having trouble obtaining the required documents that they ,
21 needed to do their inspection.
22 'BY MR. GOOLD:
l 23 0 Una this a continuing problem?
t r
24 A Yes, it was.
59
'utod Reporting Service ,9 y,,, ,, ,7 lafayette Buildme SuItr fa0 962 III6 Suite 220
[xtroit, \fichigan M226 Farmmetrm flills, \fichigan MolR
1 2 During 1982 did you become aware of an order issue,d by a 2 panel of administrative law judges concerning the 3 procedures to be used f or approval of underpinning work?
4 4 Yes.
5 ) And let me show you a document that's been marked as PX 6 NRC 32, an April 1982 memorandum and order by the Atomic 7 Saf oty and Licensing Board. Is this the order you became 8 aware of?
i 9 N Yes.
10 0 I'd like to direct your attention to some of the 11 statements made in the order. First, if you turn to page 12 ten, top of the page, there's a sentence there ref erring 13 to an earlier show-cause proceeding and the statement "The 14 appeal board remarked that noncompliance with the 15 Commission's quality assurance regulations is a problem 16 which has plagued the construction of this f acility. " Uas '
17 that consistent with your experience at Midland, Dr. ~
18 Landsman?
19 N Yes, but what the judges here are ref erring to are prior f
20 problems with the construction of the plant. i 21 ,0 Did you find that the same kinds of problems persisted 22 while you were involved with Midland?
I 23 A That's why the board wrote this order on the remedial i 24 soils work. l 0
Isfayette Buddine Luod Reportine Sernice yo ,, ,,, g Sute MO 962 1176 Snte 220 Dettmt, \lichigan Mt226 Farrnineton Ildh.11ichigan 18018
1 2 Let me direct your attention in that regard to page 14, 2 bottom of the page, carry-over sentence begins "As a 3 result of Board questioning, we have some doubt whether, 4 in the absence of staff review and approval, Consumer s 5 would carry out certain remedial soils activities using 6 appropriate OA procedures and principles. " Did you share 7 that doubt, Dr. Landsman?
8 A I think that's why the Board wrote this memo, or order, 9 excuse me.
10- 2 What was the thrust of the order as you understood it?
11 A Because of all the problems they were having on site, 12 which I think a majority of them I identified in my 13 inspection reports, the Board decided bef ore they go on 14 with any more remedial work that they would need prior i
15 staf f approval to do any work. Prior staff approval 1G meaning I would review the procedures in implementing -- 1 17 the implemencing of procedures bef ore I did the work to 13 make sure everything was in place so they wouldn' t drill 19 through any more duct banks or anything.
20 0 You' ve mentioned a Board decision. Was that a panel of 21 administrative. law judges separate f rom the NRC staff ?
22 A Yes.
l 23 0 Now, subsequent to the issuance of the April 1982 order, 24 did you learn of anything that appeared to be a violation ;
61
"# J0410 Yorthurstern fluy.
lafayette Building Suite 630 962'III6 Suite 220 Detroit. \fichigan M226 Farmington lidis, \fichigan 18018
1 of the order?
2 A Prior to the order?
3 Q Subsequent to the issuance of the April 1982 order.
4 MR. LIBBY: Is that asking to be admission 5 at this point?
6 4 Yes.
7 3Y MR. GOOLD:
8 D Let me show you in that connection a document which we've 9 marked as PX NRC 259, referring to a deep Q duct bank.
10 (Deposition Exhibit No. URC 259, 11 Letter of DE Horn, dated 6-4-82, 12 was marked f or identification.)
13 A Yes.
14 hY MR. GOOLD:
15 Q Did you learn of a violation of the April 1982 order 16 concerning a deep 0 duct bank?
17 ?, Yes, I did.
18 1 Dr. Landsman, the exhibit bef ore you, which we' ve marked 19 as PX NRC 259, refers to a May 19 through 21, 1982 20 inspection visit by you to the site. Do you recall making 21 that visit?
22 A Yes, I do.
23 0 And did you participate in any discussions with Consumers i 24 Power personnel or others at the site concerning whether i I 62 lafayette Building 3tk990 %rthurstern flory, Suite MO 962 1176 suae 2:o Detroit. \lichigan m226 Farmington linfl, \bchican moln
.1 work was authorized at the so-called deep Q duct bank?
2 N Yes, I did.
3 ) First, can you explain f or uc what the deep 2 duct bank i 4 is?
5 h Yeah, that's why I was having trouble. I thought this 6 duct bank was the one that you previously asked me to 7 review that they drilled through while they were 8 installing the sheet piling around it.
9 Q Does PX NRC 259 ref er to a separate problem?
10 A I'm not sure. I cannot recall, but I do know thry also 11 drilled through or hit this duct bank'when they were 12 installing the sheet piling around that.
13 2 Uould you take a look down about two-thirds of 0 vay to 14 the paragraph which states "Dr. Landsman confirmed his r 15 understanding that this pit would terminate a relatively 16 short distance below the duct, and not to be extended j 17 ' lower, as originally intended. " Do you see that?
18 h Yes.
19 ) Did you have a discussion along the lines sunmarized in 20 this letter by Mr. Horn of Consumers Power and dated June 21 4, 1982?
22 3 Yes.
I 23 0 What was the occasion f or this subj ect arising?
I 24 A I was on site for something. I don' t know if it was the 63 I' u d Reporting Sert' ice ,o . ,, ,,
lsfayette Buildsng Suiar h w 962 1176 Suite 2:a Iktroit, \fichiran M2:6 Farmineron Ihth. \fichiran m018
- - - . . - . - - _ - . - - - . - _ _ ~ . . - . - _ . . _ - -. - . - _ _ - _ , _. . - _ _
i 1 week bef ore or, that week, and one of the agreements in the 2 order was, the ASLB order was, if it was a design change --
3 let me go back. I'm not sure if it was in the order or 4 not, but one of the agreements flashington, NRR and I had, 5 was -- I'm not sure if it was in the order or not -- was 6 whether -if it was a design change I would get to NRR and 7 ask them to review it, but if it was a major design 8 change, if it was a minor one and I could decide on site 9 f or myself whether to let them go ahead with it or not I >
10 could -- this was part of the order saying prior staff 11 appr oval. It came --
12 ) Excuse me, Dr. Landsman. Are you ref erring to the April 13 1982 order we just looked at?
14 h Yes.
l 15 Q Okay. I' m sorry. Go ahead. ,
16 A Somehow I f ound out on site that the original plan f or the l 17 deep Q duct bank had been changed and they were going to 18 dig beneath it. I seem to recall that the original 19 drawings showed they were just going to go down to the 20 duct bank and somehow I found out that they were going to 21 go beneath it. I thought this was a major design change 22 and there happened to be an, I want to say ASLB, ACRS, 23 that's what I was thinking of, there happened to be an 24 ACRS meeting in town that week or something and they were i
64 Luizod Reponine Service ,go ,,,,,,,,,
Infayette RusIdine Suar ::o i Snar Mo *b2 1 Iib (Mroa \lahigan -18226 Farentneron llull<. \lichiean 18018
I having an inspection on site and I got -- Nc. Hood was on 2 site and Mr. Kane, and I remember dragging them away f rom 3 their tour and saying we have a problem here we have to r 4 discuss with the licensee.
5 And we had an impromptu meeting in one of 6 the trailers that af ternoon. I don' t recall the date of 7 i t. I'm sure it says here somewhere. It was one of these 8 dates f rom May 19th through the 21st. We had a meeting in 9 the trailer about the excavation beneath the deep Q duct 10 bank and whether it was a change or it wasn' t. And we 11 decided at the meeting it was a major change and they 12 would not dig a below one until they submitted drawings to 13 the Commission that Joe Kane and the structural branch ,
14 could have reviewed. As a matter of fact, as of this date 15 we have still not received those drawings but --
16 2 And did this decision becomo communicated to Consumers 17 Power?
18 N Since it was my meeting on site I inf ormed them at the 19 meeting that we understand you will not dig beneath it 20 since it isn' t appr oved. I had an exit meeting, which 21 this is I think, on May 21st which Consumers in their own 22 handwriting here said I confirmed it and then I had a 23 f ollowing exit meeting the f ollowing Friday, where I think 24 there's a document somewhere which I think also says I l r ;
I s i
65
- f. nod Reporting Sert ice ,, p, 9,g ,, ,,,,m ,,
lafayette Buildine sure hw 962 1176 saute 2n Dettdt, \fichigan 18226 Farmington lisils. \fwhtgan 18018
1 asked them -- I made sure they understood that they were 2 not to dig below the duct bank.
3 0 What happened with respect to the duct bank?
4 h Subsequently when I came on site, I' m not sure how long 5 af ter this it was, maybe a month, I determined that they G had dug beneath the duct bank.
7 O How did you learn this?
l 8 A I think I looked down the pit and saw them working in i
9 there and asked somebody what they were doing. Up to this 10 point the sheet piling and the hole in the ground were 11 just up to the duct bank, which is approximately, I don' t 12 know, 40 feet in the ground or so, and I looked down and 13 saw them working on down there.
P 14 Q Let me show you a document that's been marked as PX HRC 15 260, Dr. Landsman, and can you identify this document f or i 1G us, please?
7 (Deposition Exhibit No. URC 260, 13 !!emorandum f rom James G. Keppler to 19 James A. Fitzgerald, da ted 8-20-82, 20 was marked f or identification.)
21 A Yes, I can.
I 22 BY HR. GOOLD:
1 23 0 What is it?
I 24 p It's Mr. Keppler placing a cover letter and a memo that I l 4
Infayette Bwiding
- #"'"5 '"
3tnIn %rthur tern lluy.
Smte hm 962 II ?6 Suute 2:0 Detroit. \fwhigan 18:26 Fnrmuneton lluth, \lichigan 18018
i wrote to my boss at the time, Wayne Schaef er, about the 2 violation of the order. I wasn' t getting too much 3 satisf action f rom my Region III management at the time.
4 They didn' t understand the severity of what had happened 5 on site. I think it was right about at this time that 6 Wayne Schaef er and Bob Warnick took 'over as the Office of 7 Special Cases section and then Wayne took over as the 8 Midland section boss and I don' t think they understood 9 exactly what was going on at the time with the Board order 10 so I wanted to make sure I got it in writing. And I wrote 11 this memo dated August the 24th, which is right af ter it 12 happe ne d, and I was going to send this to Mr. Paton since 13 he was involved with the hearing at the time and I wasn' t 14 getting any satisf action with my management. This was 15 originally going to go to Bill Paton who was' the NRC 1G attorney on the -- for the ASLB hearing and I j ust 17 explained to him what happened and he told me to write it 18 all down so I wouldn' t forget it or whatever.
19 And what happened in the of fice was they ,
20 found out I was going to write a memo to the attorney and 21 I said I better write it to Wayne who in turn handed it ;
22 l over to !!r. Koppler, or something, in a meeting and Mr.
23 Keppler ordered an investigation. The Office of 24 Investigations is not part of the regular Mnc so in order I
i 57
.n d Reporting Sertice g .
,, y lafayette Bwiding Sutto MO Ob2*III6 Sante 220 Iktrat, \fichigan M226 Farmington llolls, \fahitan 2018
1 to gat an investigation going !!r. Keppler hcd to write a 2 ~ meno to !!r. Fitzgerald, who was, as it says here, acting 3 director, to request an investigation of the violation of 4 the Board order.
5 0 Was your August 24 memorandum, the last two pages of this 6 exhibit, prepared as an accurate summary of .the incident 7 and prepared by you in the course of your duties as an IIRC 8 employ ee, Dr. Landsman?
9 MR. LIBBY: Just so I' m clear, Jim, you' re 10 just asking him whether he accurately set forth his 11 observations?
12 MR. GOOLD: That's right.
13 A Ye s, I did.
14 3Y MR. GOOLD:
l I 1 15 0 I notice that in addition to the quection about approval 16 ,
for this work there's a ref erence to inadvertent drilling i 17 into the duct bank in the third paragraph. Do you see 18 that?
I '
19 A Yes.
20 0 Can you explain f or us what you learned about this 21 incident in that respect, that is, with regard to the 1
22 drilling into the duct bank and emptying well drilling 23 fluid?
i 24 IIR. LIDBY: Dr. Landsman, just so the record 1 68 I* d N'Por ing Sert'iee ,o y, ,,, ,, _
IA)hytte Hutiding Suur MO 962'III6 % te 220 (ktest. \fichigan #226 1%rmineton flills. \hrhigan 1801M
. - . .- _ . . _ . = _ , _ . _ , , _ - _ . _ . - . _ . _ , __ ____ _
y,. -
l' is clear, could you give us the Bates number and page 2 you' re ref erring to?
3 TH E WITNESS : 3097.
4 MR. LIBBY: Thank you.
5 A Yeah, that's why I'm having trouble with that original 6 document you showed me awhile ago. I think it's the same 7 turbine -- it's the same duct bank that they drilled in P
8 through and emptied the mud into the Turbine Building, but 9 I'm still not sure. I' m trying to recollect.
10 3Y MR. GOOLD:
11 ) Well, can you explain what your understanding was as to 12 what happened with recpect to drilling fluid and hitting a j 13 duct bank?
14 A Yes. This one in particular, they were drilling a 15 dewatering well nearby, as it says here, and since they i 16 weren' t sure where the duct bank was located laterally in ;
17 the ground -- they weren' t sure of the location of the 18 duct bank so when they set up the drilling rig they 19 accidentally drilled a hole right through the duct bank 20 since they weren' t sure where it was at, and the hole is t 21 usually kept open with well drilling fluid, which is a i
22 clay-like material that's ver'y soupy, and when they , ,
23 drilled into the duct bank all the drilling mud went i
24 l through the duct, which is j ust a series of plastic, tnree l !
69 i Luzod Reporting Sersice ,g ,o y,,k , ,,,,,, ,,,,.
Nayette kiding '
Suar hw 962 III6 Sanite 220 Detrat, \fichigan 2226 Farminuton Ildh, Alichigan 18018
1 inch diameter pipes encased in concrete that flowed 2 through one of the pipes into the Turbine Building. Now 3 this duct bank is not abandoned. That's why I was having 4 trouble placing this one with that other one that you 5 showed me that they originally thought was abandoned. I 6 got a f eeling it was the same one though.
7 2 Dr. Landsman -- of f the record f or a moment. We' ve run 8 out of time on this tape.
9 MR. RICCI: End of tape number two. We' re 10 at 56 minutes and 6 seconds, that's on the running clock; 11 on the f rame clock it's 59 minutes and 24 seconds.
12 ( A lunch recess was held during 13 the proceedings.)
14 MR. RICCI: Beginning of tape number 3.
15 DY MR. GOOLD:
I 16 0 Cr. Landsman, bef ore we broke for lunch we were talking 17 about the so-called deep Q duct bank incident. In that la connection I'd like to ask whether in the NRC licensing 19 proceedings there's an area of inquiry known as management 20 fitness or management integrity to run a nuclear plant?
21 A Talking about the ASLD hearing? '
l 22 That's correct, the ASLB hearing. -
l]
i 23 I think that was one of the big issues.
24 0 And what impact, if any, did the deep Q duct bank incidenc , ,
70 Luzod Reportung Senke , g , g y,,, k , ,,,,,,, ,, g __
lxfortte lludding Sustr' tG3 962* II ?6 Suite 22th Ik troit, \lichigan 49226 Farminetm lidls, \lichigan 18018 t
1 have in connection with that issua? ,
2 A I don' t think the Board has ruled on that incue yet.
3 0 Can you explain what you mean by the issue that hasn' t t 4 been ruled on?
5 N The management -- I'm trying to think f or a second -- boy, 6 my mind is not there right now, Something to do with the 7 management of the whole f acility. I thought that was one 8 of the big issues f rom Barbara Stamiris.
9 Q Let me ask you the question this way, Dr. Landsman: Did 10 the deep 0 duct bank incident have any impact on your 11 views regarding Consumers Power's fitness to finish and 12 operate the Midland Nuclear Plant?
13 A It was one of the main issues of -- it was one of the main t
14 issues while I was involved with the plant and they went 15 ahead and did something that they weren' t supposed to. I l
16 don' t know. I'm sors of losing you, that's the problem. l 17 h Did you come to believe that this tas a deliberate 10 incident of your having been misled?
19 MR. LIBBY: O'o j ection,- calls f or an opinion.
20 DY MR. GOOLD:
l 21 Q I'm trying to find out why this became such a serious 1
22 l incident in your j udgment, Dr. Landsman.
23 MP. LIBBY: Same objection. I also think 24 you' re leading him at this point. ;
i 71 L u z oci Reporting Sertice 3,y, y,, ,,,,,,,
f.ofayette lhalding Ssate hw 962 ll ?6 State 2:0 lktrott, \fichigan M226 Farmingt<m lidis. \luhigan m0M
1 A This une just another ens of the incidencoe I' thcught that 2 we proved in court that Consumers is not always telling 3 the truth. I thought we spent six days at the ASLB 4 hearing proving that they willfully violated the Board 5 order.
6 2 At about the same time that the question was arising as to 7 whether the work could be done on the deep 0 duct bank, 8 did you also become aware of work being done on an 9 observation well at the site?
l 10 N It was about the same time, but they were drilling 11 numerous holes on site.
I 12 0 Let me direct your attention back f or a moment to PX 11RC 13 259, Mr. Horn's June 4,1982 letter, and to page 3 in 14 particular. And at the top of that page there's a 15 ref erence to your having been inf ormed about a plan to 16 backfill at OBS number four. In that observation well 17 number four?
18 A Right.
19 ) And did you come to learn why consideration was being 20 given to backfilling around that well?
21 A Yes. Because during the construction of it they pounded a I 22 hole in a pipe that was underneath the well that they
\
23 didn' t know was there and they broke through the pipe and 24 when they broke through the buried pipe a lot of the soil
. l l
72 lafa)ette Ruddutg 1.u: d Reportina Sereier ,,g ,,,,,,,
l Suite MO 962 11I6 Sutte 220 Detroit. \fichiean 48:26 Farmineron lid!s \lockiean 1801R
1 around the well collapsed into the hole. As a matter of 2 fact, they almost lost the drilling rig into the hole that 3 that occurred.
4 2 Did you learn for how long this pounding had taken place?
5 N Yeah. I think talking to the drillers -- I happened to be
~
6 on site that day, 7 12 Uhat did you observe?
8 N I was there after it collapsed, but I talked to the 9 drillers and they said they were inf orming the OC or QA 10 person in charge that they hit something and he kept 11 saying to go ahead and keep pounding the well through, 12 which they did, even though they kept saying, the well 13 drillers, that they were on something instead of soil and 14 he kept telling them to keep going.
15 0 What happened in the vicinity of the well? You mentioned I
16 that the drill rig was almost lost.
17 A When the hole collapsed into the pipe that they hit down 18 there they lost a huge quantity of soil around the well 19 and the drill rig happened to be sitting right over the 20 hole. Had the hole opened up on the surf ace a little bit 21 over, the drill rig would have collapsed in the hole.
22 Q What did your observation of this incident indicate to you ,
l 23 with respect to the condition of the fill in the vicinity '
24 of observation well number f our? j l
l 73 U "E '" 30810 %rthurnern fluy.
lAfayrtte Raildsne l
Suite MO 962 11?6 Suar ::0 Detrut, \fichigan Mi:26 Farmington Usils, Whigan 18018 L ,_.-_ -,_ . . - -. _ _ _ , ..
1 h4 It appeared to be very uncompacted, otherwise I don' t 2 think it would have collapsed into the pipe so easily.
3 0 You've mentioned that you observed this well being 4 drilled. Approximately where was this on the site, Dr.
5 Landsman?
6 N It's right at the corner of the Diesel Generator Building, 7 between the Diesel Generator Building and the Turbine 8 Building. I'm not sure of the east or west or north or 9 south. I lost track of directions right now.
10 0 I' d like to show you a map of part of the site that's been l'
11 previously introduced and admitted into evidence as 12 !
Def endant's Trial Exhibi t 3 58- A, Dr. Landsman, and on this 13 l map there are locations given for some borings that the 1 testimony previously has indicated were requested by 14 ]
15 personnel at the site early in 1978 but which were not ,
1 i
16 done. Could you identify on DTX 358- A appro::imately where !
l 17 the well you saw work being done on was located?
i 18 A flormally -- !
19 !!R. LIDBY: Excuse me, Dr. Landsman. I' m 20 going to object to the little historical background f rom j 21 l counsel. I think you' re testifying and I have a problen {
l l 22 h with the question.
rl 23 BY llR. GOOL D:
f 24 O Can you mark on DTX 358-A where observation well four was
,.t!.
- s. -
.. -~.8-
~2.1i ,
-~ x ~ ,, 2s, Farmsneton flulls, \fichtcan MtilH
[htrott. \lachte vt M226
1 being drilled when you observed the problem there?
2 N Verbally for the record or on the drawing?
3 2 Why don' t you go ahead and mark it.
4 N Right about here. (Indica ting) 5 MR. LIBBY: Dr. Landsman, just for the 6 record, could you initial and date that please?
7 THE NIT 11ESS: Sure. What's the date?
8 KR. LIBBY: I got the 17th, June. Thank 9 you.
10 3Y MR. GOOLD:
11 0 I' d also like to show you, Dr. Landsman, a docanent that 12 was previously introduced and discussed during Mr. Donald 13 Horn's testimony and it's been marked as PX CPC 530, and 14 I'll just give you ny copy and I'll substitute an 15 original, or if John will lend me his, I' d like you to ;
16 take a look over the handwritten portion of this, Dr.
17 Landsman, and you'll see it ref ers to a January 1978 18 request by proj ect engineering for borings in the Diesel 19 Generator Building and in the service water pump 20 structure.
21 A Yes.
l 22 O And my question for you, Dr. Landsman, is simply whether i
23 this inf ormation concerning requests having been made f or 24 borings in the vicinity of where observation well four was l l
l 75 Lwd Reporting Service ,, ,o ,,,,,,,,,
Lafvette Buddine
&sste M o 962 1576 Sate 2;M '
Detroit, \fichigan 4R226 Farmington lidh, \fachsean 88018
4 1 later drilled was ever disclosed to you?
2 liR. LIDBY I' m going to obj ect f or lack of 3 foundation. This incident happened in '70 and he's 4 already testified he didn' t get on the site until '80 or 5 '31.
6 A Somewhere I saw this sheet of paper before. I don' t know 7 where.
8 BY MR. GOOLD:
9 Q Was this in connection with investigative work regarding 10 the plant?
11 A I don' t know. I' m not sure.
l 12 0 Can you put anymore specific time f rame on it?
I 13 A No, but I wasn't aware of this until the last year or so, 14 or two, whenever I saw this she?t. So I wouldn' t have i,
15 even asked them if they were intending to drill borings 16 there. I wouldn' t have even known they were even planning j 17 on it.
18 0 Let me focus back on the time the incident occurred at 19 observation well number f our. Did you have any knowledge 20 then as to previous requests that had been made f or 21 borings to be taken in that area?
22 A Mo.
l 23 0 Dr. Landsman, did you have occasion during your work in l 1
24 connection with the Midland site to review a report that ;
l'u: d Reporting Sers ice ., w ,, ,,, k , ,,,, ,7q lafayetar fluilding siate hy) 462 1176 Sonnte 23>
iktrat, \fichigan k92:6 Farmsneton llalls. \lichtean 18018
f 1 had been prepared in 1977 concerning the administration 2 building grade beam f ailure?
3 h Yes.
4 ) Let me show you a document that's been marked as PX BEC 5 227.2 in that regard. This is a copy of the report 6 together with a cover letter transmitting it to the NRC 7 and the cover letter is by Mr. Brunner f rom Consumers 8 Pow e r .
9 (Deposition Exhibit No. DEC 227.2, 10 Cover letter f rom James E. Brunner 11 to William Paton, dated 9-14-81, was 12 marhed for identification.)
13 DY MR. GOOLD:
1 14 ) Dr. Landsman, what was the occasion for your review of the 15 Administration Building report?
16 % Somcwhere during the time f rame when I got involved with i 17 Midland and I heard about the Administration Building 18 problem I wanted to get a copy of the original report when 19 I found out there was one written. So, somebody got me a 20 copy of this and I read it.
21 Q Why were you interested in reviewing a copy of the 22 Administration Building report?
l 23 A I think I wanted to find out f or myself if they really ,
i 24 knew what the problems were on site back then. l i
77 Lu:od Reporting Service yo ,, ,,
gay ,,,, sig,,,
Suite Mo 962 Il?6 Suite 23)
IMrat, \fuchigan 48226 Farmineron listis, \fichigan tim]8
1 Q And did you review the Administrction Duilding report?
2 A Yes, I did.
3 Q Did you reach any conclusions as to what the report 4 indicated with respect to soils problems at the site?
5 MR. LIBBY: At what point in time?
6 3Y MR. GOOLD:
7 h When you reviewed the report. -
8 N I cannot recall.
9 Q Let me direct your attention, Dr. Landsman, to the boring l
10 logs which are attached, the first of which is for hole LU 11 at page 95121532. Do you have that in f ront of you?
12 A Yes, I do.
13 Q Uould you look down at elevation 531 where there's a blow 14 count of ten recorded for fill?
15 A Yes. ,
I i 16 Q And what does a blow count of ten for fill described as l 17 appears under the description of classification heading 18 indicate to you?
19 4 That it's not very good.
20 0 uould you turn to the log for hole HT, which is about 21 three pages f urther on?
i 22 A Yes. '
I 23 0 And at about the same depth do you see there a blow count 1
24 of ten also recorded?
1.n d Reporting Service ,, ,, y,b , ,,,, , gg_
lafayette Bwiding Suit ma 962 1176 Suar 2:0 Detrmt, \lichigan ss::n Farmincron litlh \lwhican h901R
e 1 k HT?
2 0 H T.
3 4 No, I don' t see a ten.
4 !!R. LIBBY: I think you' re looking at the 5 wrong log.
6 3Y MR. GOOLD:
7 ) Dr. Landsman, would you look down at about the third entry 8 of blow counts f rom the bottom?
9 A I got it, I got it.
10 0 Do you now see the blow count of ton there?
11 N Ye s.
12 0 And what does a blow count of ten recorded at that depth 13 indicato to you about the fill?
14 N Same thing, that it's not very good.
15 p Did you also review the calculations cet f orth on figure 3 16 of the Administration Building report? l 17 A No, I did not.
I 10 Q Did you ever have any discussions wi.kn Mr. Donald Horn 19 f rom Consumers Power concerning the aaminictration grade 20 beam incident, Dr. Landsman?
21 A I'm sure I did but I can' t recall.
l 22 0 Did Mr. Horn disclose to you any concerns he had had about .
I 23 the fill prior to the Diccol Generator Duilding i
24 settlemont?
l 79 Lus:od Reporting Sersice , 9, _ ,7 Lafaptte Budding Suite hw 962 1176 Suiar 2m Detrat, \fichizan 182 6 Farmsneton Ildh. .\fichiran 2018
1 liR. LIDDY: Objecticn, eskad and answcrcd.
2 I' m sorry.
3 4 Not that I can recall, f 4 3Y llR. GOOLD:
5 2 Switching to a slightly diff erent subj ect, Dr. Landsman, 6 we've looked at a series of 1902 documents relating to the 7 deep Q duct bank drilling incidence and I believe in your 8 earlier testimony you ref erred to an Of fice of Special s
9 Cases having been created in about this time f rame, that 10 is 1982. What was the f unction of the Of fice of Special 11 Ca ses?
12 N fir. Keppler decided that f or his two big problem plants 13 that he form a special little group to j uct work f ull time 14 on the two plants. One of them was liidland and one of 15 them was "immer.
16 0 Has there a purpose to make additional manpower available 17 for these problem plants as you've described them?
18 A I don' t know if it was additional or he j ust put full time 19 manpower on it.
20 ) Here you by this time in f act f ull time on the 111dland 21 Plant?
22 A I was on it already I think a year bef ore that full time.
I -
23 0 There's been discussion in this case about whether the 24 Nuclear Regulatory Commission involvement with tiidland was 1 80 lafayette Buildine lx d Reporting Sersice ,g ,,
Suito MO 962 11?6 Suste 2:0 (Mmt, \fichigan 482:6 Farminetas llalls. \fwhigan 18018
1 a source of delay for the remedial work, tiere you under 2 any instructions regarding making yourcoif available to 3 review inf ormation or requests submitted to you by 4 Consumers Power?
5 MR. LIDBY: I' m going to again obj ect to 6 counsel testifying. I think it's a mischaracterization of 7 prior testimony and I'd like him to tell the witness who 8 brought up those discussions, if you can.
9 3Y t1R. GOOLD:
10 2 Can you answer the question, Dr. Landsman, in terms of 11 whether you were under any instructions so f ar as 12 cooperating with Consumers Power to get matters reviewed 13 expeditiously?
14 A I don' t know if I was under any instructions, but I used 15 to review things as f ast as they could be reviewed. I 16 don't think I ever held up construction at the Midland 17 Plant.
18 0 I'd like to turn next to a document that's been marked as 19 PX NRC 15, Dr. Landsman, a June 21, 1982 memorandum to tir.
20 Keppler f rom Mr. Norelius and Mr. Spessard. Did you have l
21 occasion to review this memorandum during the course of 22 your work on !!idland during 19827 k 23 A Yes, I did.
I l
24 Q Did you participate in the preparation or give input on l i 81 I' u d R' Porting Sern ice ,, ,,
lAf4)ttle Bwiding ,
Swar hm 962 1176 Swie 2;y>
iktmt, \fichizan 18226 Farmsneton Ihlis, \lichiran taala
_ - -- - _-.=__-__ - - __ _ -. ____ _. -
1 the preparation of this memorandum?
2 N I'm sure I gave input to 14r. !!orelius and 11r. Spessard.
3 If you mean whether I wrote part of the memo, I did not.
4 0 Paragraph one of the memorandum notes that "Historically 5 the !!idland Project has had problem periods of 6 questionable quality assurance as related to construction 7 activities and has had commensurate reulatory attention in 8 the form of special inspections, special meetings, and 9 orders. These problems have been given higher public ,
10 visibility than most other construction sites in Region 11 III. As questions arise regarding the adequacy of 12 construction or the assurance of adequate construction wo 13 are f aced with determining what regulatory action wo 14 should take. We are again f aced with such a situation. "
15 Can you explain for us what gave rise to 16 there again being a question of what regulatory action 17 should be taken f or !!idland during this time f rame?
18 A I want to say it was all the problems I was identifying in '
19 the soils area, but there was also other problems I think l 20 were coming up at the name time.
i 21 0 Was consideration being given by thin time f rame to ; g j 22 attempting to have all work halted at the site?
I 93 A I couldn' t say for sure. l l l l 24 0 Do you recall the question arising during 1982 as to l
I 82
- "' MRIO %rthurstern lluy.
La.fayette Buildine Smte hM 962'llIb htte :20 throa, \fichigan s8:26 Farminerem lhlls. \hchuman IsmR
I whether an across-the-board stop work on saf ety-related 2 activities should be either ordered or suggested?
3 A Hot without reading the memo.
4 2 Why don' t you take a moment to look it over and we'll go 5 of f the record to give you that opportunity, Dr. Landsman.
6 !!R. RICCI: Going off the record at 1944.
7 ( A brief discussion was held 8
i of f. the record.)
9 11R. RICCI: Back on. record. Running time i
10 shows 1944, frame 2039.
11 3Y liR. GOOLD:
12 0 !!aving looked over PX NRC 15, Dr. Landsman, I wonder if 4
13 you can reconstruct for us what kinds of regulatory action 14 were under concideration within the NRC staff at this 15 time?
16 MR. LIDBY: Again you' re asking f or his 17 independent recollection?
18 MR. COOLD: Yes.
19 N In June '02 I think the -- what happened was 11r. Koppler 20 f ormed the Of fice of special Cases in response to this 21 letter. I think that was the regulatory action he took, 22 to have a dedicated staff to do nothing but work on 23 !!idland. !
l 24 DY !!R. GOOLD: i 83 lafayette kidme nod pnng Smin 3,,4 ,, A , n,,,, y,_) _
Suite MO 962-l1Ib Sacae 2;,m ?
Detrat, \fichigan 482:6 Farmnerm Udh, \lahitan 180lR
1 Q Now subsequ]nt to your joining ths Offica of Special 2 Ca se s, did you participate in an inspection concerned with 3 the qualifications of quality control personnel at the 4 site?
5 N I participated in an inspection, a lot of them. I' m not 6 sure which one you mean.
7 Q Did you come to learn there were questions about the 8 qualifications of QC personnel at the site, focusing on 9 the underpinning work in particular?
10 A We always had questions about the quality of the OC 11 personnel on site. I'm having trouble focusing on which 12 inspection you' re talking about.
! 13 ) Let me show you a document that's been marked as PX NRC 14 262, ref erring to September and October work at the site.
15 And if you take a moment to look that over you'll notico 16 that it ref ers to testing activity concerned with a 17 remedial soils OC recertification program, specif ically 18 beginning on page N 8040.
19 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 262,
! 20 Letter f rom RF Harnick to James 21 U. Cook, da ted 11-8-82, was marked 22 for identification.) ,
I i 23 A Yes, I remember.
! l 24 DY MR. GOOLD:
.f l !
l f.u: d Reporting Sertice yo ,,
tajhyette Buddme l Suiu MO 962.]Ii6 Suite ::o Otrat, \fwhigan M226 Farmmaton Ildis, \lidtean 3018
1 1 What was the problem, if any, that gave rise to a 2 recertification program?
3 N They were going to, as it says here in the letter, they 4 were going to integrate the soils QA and OC functions 5 under the direction of MPOAD. I think subsequent to that 6 they were under the Bechtel umbrella and now they were 7 going to place all the OA/0C f unctions under the direction 8 of the Consumers Power Company, and one of the things that 9 they promised to do was to recertify all the Dechtel OC 10 inspectors under the new Consumers Power Company 11 certification rules or procedures.
12 0 I' m corry. Have you finished your ancwer?
l 13 Yes.
14 'O Did you have occasion to review the recertification of the 15 QC inspectors? !
1G N I think that's why we did this inspection.
17 Q And did you find any procedures in use that raised i
18 questions as to whether the Quality control personnel were 19 in f act qualified?
20 Yes. I think if you read it here it says it all.
21 Q Uell, let's focus on page N 8040. Bottom paragraph A 22 there's a statement "The incpectors observed that in j 23 administering the oral examinations,11PQAD would 24 excessively repeat the questions allowing the examinee 85 (AfG)til! OuildLMe ]IN 00 %!!hM ettfin llM y, Su'ar h w 962 El'b Smte 23)
Detroa, \fwhigan ISLM Farmsnetm linlis, \1whican 53018
1 several attempts to correct previously incorrect '
2 examination responses. " Did you observe that?
3 h Yes. That was Mr. Horn as a matter of f act.
4 2 Was he administering the questions?
5 A Yes.
6 2 And was he repeating them until the person being tested 7 got the answer right?
8 MR. LIBBY: Obj ection, mischaracterization.
9 DY MR. GOOLD:
- l 10 0 Is that a f air description of what was happening?
11 MR. LIDBY: Same obj ection.
12 A "MPQAD would excessively repeat the questions allowing the 13 examinee several attempts to correct previously incorrect 14 examination responses." j 15 0 And did you have a problem with that procedure? ,
l 16 A Yeah, we had a big problem with it considering we were 17 sitting there in the room as observers and if Don thought 18 he was doing such a good job while we were there we 19 couldn' t imagine what kind of job he was doing during the '
20 exams we weren' t there.
i 21 0 uould you turn to the next page, page N 8041, top 22 paragraph states "The inspectors observed that in 1
23 administering the oral examination, MPOAD would mark l l s 24 quantions which the examinee f ailed to correctly answer, i l
r 86 Lu:od Reporting Serske g y , y,,, g , ,,,,, ,,, ,_
, l.afayette kiding swtr hw 962 1176 Swte 23)
(ktrat. \!ahitan "'L% Farmsneton lidir \furhigan m0!M
9 1 as NA, when the question was relevant to the pertinent 2 PQ CI . " Could you explain what that relates to in laymen's 3 terms, Dr. Landsman?
4 % When Don would ask a question that the, some of them, not 5 all of them, that the one taking the exam, the examinee 6 couldn't anower correctly af ter a repeated attempt, after 7 repeated attempts, sometimes Don marked it UA. In other 8 words, when they added up the score so many right out of 9 so many questions, if . he marked one of them NA we wouldn' t 10 have so many wrong questions. So the guy -- it would be 11 much easier for the examinee to pass the test.
12 D now was this question resolved, that is, the procedures 13 used for the recertificati,on of inspectors?
14 A I think we forced them into doing written exams. I'm not 1
15 sure though.
16 ) At this time had the underpinning work begun?
17 A November ' 82, I don' t think the exact underpinning under 18 the Auxiliary Building began but all the preliminary work 19 had begun I think.
20 2 Based on the observations you had made on the testing of 21 the OC inspectors, what was your view with regard to 22 whether the underpinning work could proceed under the l 23 Auxiliary Building with resconable assurance that it would !
l 1 24 be properly perf ormed? i 87 Laod Reporting Sernice ,o y ,,g , _ ,
f.afayette ikdding Suar MO 962 1 iib Suar 2:0 Derms, \tahigan #226 Farmmetan lidh, \tahigan 48018
1 A Ao it says hero in the rcport, the regien is;ued a 2 confirmatory action letter which says you can' t do any 3 work unloon we approve it until you do the following 4 things. He have a list of five things here that the 5 licensoo had to do. One of them was to stop all soils 6 work.
7 Q Did Consumers Power contest the findings you had noted in 8 the two paragraphs we looked at about how the test 9 procedures were being administered by Mr. Horn?
10 4 I don' t think they contested it. I think I remember this.
11 This was a late Friday af ternoon that we had the meeting 12 on site and we asked them to do these things. I don' t 13 think they had contested it. They understood that wo 14 wanted written exams so there wouldn' t be any of this 15 questionable, or questions asked. I think we had a 16 meeting subsequent to this around three days later. He i 17 asked them in view of what we found in the soils please 18 explain how this doesn' t af f ect the balance of the plant.
19 ) At about that time was an inspection done of other 20 portions of the plant, specifically the Diesel Generator 21 Duilding, to take a close look at the quality of 22 construction? f i
23 h What I said in I think a few days af ter this we called i 4
24 them into the ef fice I think -- we had a meeting on site f
l i
88 !
lafayette Raldag Amla %rthurstern fluy\
Suur MO 9b2'II?6 State 2;,M Detrat, \1schigan 4822n Farmmerun listh. \lschigan 18018 '
4 1 may be. He asked them -- I think I g;vo them o vcebal show 2 cause that Friday af ternoon asking them how -- In view of 3 what we f ound in the soils work how this af fected the 4 balance of the plant and they got back to us in an hour or S no and said they didn' t have enough time to prepare an 6 answer and they said they' d get back to us in a f ew days, 7 and we had a meeting where they presented what they were 8 going to do with the balance of the plant, QC people, and 9 that was to decertify them and everything else, you know, 10 and go through all this.
11 0 Was that a decision by Consumers Power to decertify ,
12 quality control personnel in light of the test procedures 13 you had uncovered?
14 MR. LIDBY: Obj ection, mischaracterization.
15 A I'm not sure if it was their idea or in concert with us 16 having a discussion with them. I' m not sure.
17 SY HR. GOOLD:
l la ) In any event, was there an 11RC f ormal directive requiring 19 this action or was it something Consumers Power undertook 20 voluntarily, as f ar as you know?
21 N I think they did it themselves, but I cannot recall. It 22 was right after this that this was the meeting I remember ,
23 that we had the vote.
1 24 0 can you explain what you mean by the vote, Dr. Landsman?
89 Luzod Reportirur Servict says wthwiern Huy.
Lafayette Buildmt Suar h30 gg3,jj7s Suar 220 Detrat, \fichigen 48:26 Farmneton ihlls. % hie ** *013
1 1 A Yeah. We went over this in the ASLB hearing in length.
2 Af ter the big meeting we had, I think it was at the Ramada 3 Inn back then, public meeting, the NRC had one of their 4 caucuses and the team took a vote to leave Consumers 5 continue working at the plant or shut them down right then 6 and there and there was five of us, and I was the only one 7 that voted that I thought in view of what we found in the 8 soils area I had a pretty good f eeling that the rest of 9 the plant was all screwed up, but the rest of the team ,
10 didn' t vote along with me and they agreed to let them 11 continue working. And subsequent to that we had that 12 Diesel Generator Building inspection. They knew they had 13 to do something to verify one way or the other what the 14 rest of the plant looked like, so we did the Diesel ,
15 Generator Duilding inspection that October I think.
16 0 This is October of 19827 l
17 A Yeah, it must have been late in October and November I l
18 think we did the inspection.
19 ) Let me show you a document that's been marked PX Hnc 22.
l 20 Is this exhibit a copy of the NRC report on the Diesel 21 Generator Building inspection?
. 22 A Yes, it is.
I .
23 0 Uhy was it decided to f ocus on the Diecel Generator l
?
24 Building?
! I Lu:od Reporting Service 99, ,,,, y isfyrtte 1%ldsne s.,, -a 921i, ~~ t. :,s Detrost, %chigan AC26 Farmeneton Hills %chte,n 88018
I h Consumers kept saying that the lattor canstruction was 2 probably the bent since they had better Oc and QA involved 3 and we knew the Diesel Generator Building had only been up
^
4 f or the last year or two, I f orget the datos exactly, but 5 all the construction in site had to be the latest and 6 greatest. So that's the building that everyone agreed 7 would probably be the best one to see how their new 8 program was working. That's why we went into the Diesel 9 Generator Building.
10 2 And did you participate in that inspection effort?
i 11 Yes, I did, j 12 0 Is PX NRC 22 the official report of the recults of that !
13 inspection ef f ort?
14 h Yes, it is.
15 Uhat, in general terms, were the findings with respect 16 particularly to the adequacy of construction at the cite? l -
17 The bottom line was no matter what the NRC looked at in 18 the Diesel Generator Building it was wrong. I don' t think 10 we found anything in the building that was constructed !
20 according to the drawings. ;
21 0 Subsequent to the issuance of the report, did Concumers 22 Power announce a cutback or a halt in saf ety-related [
23 construction work?
24 A Yot*'- talking about '.abseque ; af ter February 8th?
91 g ,,
l.ned Repooks Sertice ,9 kur hka J 0 2 ' .% te ::M Detrat. \fkkigen M Farmmaton Ildh. \lickitan mol8
1 !] Af tGr the results cf tho Diesel Gonaroter Building 2 inspection ef f ort were announced, did Consumers Power 3 decide to cut back on construction at the site?
i 4 A Ye s.
P 5 ) Do you recall approximately when that was?
6 N Yes.
7 0 can you tell us please?
l ~
8 A I wasn' t on site that day. I was at j ury duty. It was 9 the week of Thanksgiving, whenever Thanksgiving was during 10 this, during 1992 11 0 And what did you learn Consumers Power had decided to do?
l 12 A I don' t know if they decided or they were f orced into it, 13 but shut down construction until we resolved the issues 14 that we identified in this report.
15 0 And thinking f orward f rom the latter part of 1982 when the l 16 Diesel Generator Duilding inspection took place up through 17 the abandonment or cancellation of the plant, were those 18 issues ever resolved?
19 N They were working on them.
20 0 tiow , did the construction halt that we've talked about 21 include remedial soils activity?
22 A I don' t think so.
I 23 0 Do you recall that some excavation of the tunnels ;
24 underneath the Auxiliary Building went forward commencing I i f.n d Rep etsne Sers-ice ,, m,, , , , , , ,
lofvette Rwume
%ar hw 9b2 Ilih swee aO)
Detrat, \taktean sc% Farmneton flills, \lahtaan WIM
1 in late 19027 1
2 A Yes. It's because the soils program was a separate entity 7
3 ~ by then and the last exhibit, as you can see, we had that l 4 f airly under control. So we weren' t too concerned about 5 the soils once they resolved all the issuos that we had ;
6 addressed in the previous report. So that this was just -
I 7 mostly concerned with the balance of plant work.
8 ) Now when the soils work began under the Auxiliary 4
9 Building, and I'm focusing on the late 1982 time period 10 and the tunneling work, were you given any inf ormation by !
i 11 Consumers Power or Bechtel concerning when the 12 underpinning work was expected to be complete?
13 4 ~ Yeah. They gave me flow charts that showed when the 4
14 underpinning was going to be complete. I do not recall 15 the dates. :
16 0 Here you given any inf ormation specifically as to any ;
i 17 proposal or plan to load f uel in the Auxiliary Building 18 before the underpinning work was completed and a load test 19 had been finished to prove that the building was ,
20 natisf actorily shored up?
21 A I wouldn' t call it a plan. I' think they asked uc if they 22 could bring f uel on site into the f uel pool prior to the i 23 underpinning had been complete.
24 0 And what was the ancwer?
r 93 !
Luod Reporting Sersice ,o , y i+,,,e uu-a Swr hw 962 1176 hwe LW i Detut, \fichtssa 4C6 Fermington Utils, %htaan 68018
1 k The unanimous answer was that they cannot bring f uel into ,.
2 the building until we had it underpinned, j 3 0 Let me show you a document that's been previously marked 4 ao PX DEC 844, minutes f rom a July 9,1982 meeting 5 involving personnel f rom consumers Power, Bechtel and 6 Mergentime. !!o 11RC personnel are indicated to have 7 attended. And if you'll turn to pago J 6111 there's a 8 portion of the document entitled Auxiliary Building 9 Underpinning Progresa Summary, Schedule Summary. At the 10 bottom of the schedule summary there's a ref crence to 11 ef forts being made to find ways of recovering or improving 12 the schedule and then down at the bottom of that paragraph 13 there's the statement "One savings already reali::ed in the 14 schedule projection is the elimination of certain final 15 backfill operations f rom being required prior to f uel i
16 load." Do you see that? !
17 A Yes.
I i 18 0 Had any of the inf ormation reflected there been disclosed !
19 to you at about this time, July 1982?
20 MR. LIDDY: Obj ection. The question is i
l 21 ambiguous as to any inf ormation and also it calls for I
22 sheer speculation as this witness didn' t prepare this 23 document and apparently has never coen this document !
I' 24 before. j .
Lafayette Buildsng W Mio %rthur trin f(an y '
hite MI) 9NO'EE?O SutI* a09 '
Derm:, %km LCn Farm nerm lhlls. \bchwan IROIR '
1 3Y MR. GOOLD:
2 0 Let me restate the question, Dr. Landeman. Ilad it been 3 disclosed to you that a savings schedule for the 4 underpinning had been realized through eliminating certain 5 final baekfill operations prior to fuel load?
6 MR. LIBBY: I'm going to again object for 7 mischaracterization. I don' t see underpinning in that 8 sentence.
9 A I'm not sure what they were ref erring to here. There was l
10 I no way the 11RC was going to allow them to put f uel in 11 their reactor or in the fuel pool until the underpinning 12 was completa. We have a letter to somebody to that effect 13 also.
14 DY MR. GOOLD:
1 15 0 Dr. Landsman, as the underpinning work f or the Auxiliary 16 Duilding proceeded, was it decided that one of the piers 17 would be given a load tect?'
18 N Yes.
19 ) What pier was that?
20 A U-11 I think was the number.
21 0 And what was the purpose of a load test f or that pier?
.I 22 h To prove the soil parameters that were assumed in the 23 design of the underpinning.
24 And did a load test take place f or pier tFil prior to the l
,0 1 i
95 ovung Sunn .,,, ,,h ,,,,,, y,n lafyrtte Lddme Suur ab 962 11ib swerso Detrat. % kien W.M Farmmetx Hak Whieu 48018
1 I
1 abandonm:nt cf the plant? -
2 1 N They attempted to do one.
}
3 0 Uere the results satisf actory? .
4 4 No, they were not.
5 2 Was it ever concluded why the results were unsatisf actory 6 bef ore the plant was canceled?
7 4 Yeah. The original design of the f rictionless load pior 8 wasn' t quite adequate enough.
i 9 0 Dr. Landsman, next I' d like to ask you about the 10 systematic assessment of licensee performance for Hidland 11 which spanned the period f rom July 1,1981 through March 12 31, 1983, and can you 1,untify PX NRC 40 as the official 13 report of that SALP exercise?
14 A Yes.
15 0 Now what input did you have in the preparatien of this 16 repor t?
17 A I at least wrote the soils section. I might have had' a 18 lot to do with this whole thing, but I at least wrote the 19 soils section or I had input into the soils section.
20 D Let me direct your attention to page 91906173 first, the 21 first page of text for the report.
22 A Yes. .
l '
l 23 0 Under the heading soils and Foundations the statement i 24 appears "Overall perf ormance in this f unctional area has i
, ! 7 i
i j lafayette ikidtne M to % nh n t en finy, i 962 III6
~
Suar MO k re ::0 l Detrat. Uirhienn AC2n Farmsner<m ilulls % Aiean IRalR
- e e 1 continued to indicate a declining trend and remains an ;
2 area of concern. Decline was due to the continued lack of ,
f 3 attention to detail and the continuing inability on the s l
4 part of the licensee to implement properly the S requiremento of the Midland QA program." Were thoso your 6 observations for the period f rom July 1,1981 through 7 March 31, 1933?
8 % Yes. It was mine but it was also the consensus of the 9 staff.
10 0 Dy this time had you reached any conclusion as to whether 11 Consumero Power was capable of, I believe you used the i
12 term earlier, pulling of f the remedial ef fort?
l 13 A Excuse me. I'm looking for something. Yes, I did.
I s 14 D What was your conclusion? :
1 15 & When we had the SALP Board meeting f or thic I presented my !
16 case and arguments for this section and an it says here in 17 the back the Board had concidered rating them less than '
i i
18 minimally acceptable, like a category of four but we've 19 never had a category four bef ore and that would mean to 20 shut down the work, and the NRC did not want to stop the 21 aoils work again unless we really had something concrete. !
22 So the Board wrote recommendations here that we thought i 23 would solve the problem cince -- I' m not sure if this was j I I i 24 before or af ter I caid it at the ASLD hearing, it was [
i l [
97 tajnette Ikidar d Nomne M a , ,o ,,g n,,m ,,w,.
Suar hw 962 1176 Susto 25
& tut, \takiaan M226 Farmmere llalls, \takiran 2018 >
1 pecbably cf tor, to Icek at ell tho managars they htd in 2 the remedial soils area there. There was a problem 3' somewhere, we couldn' t put our finger ott it, so we asked
/ 4 them to please do a management audit in the soils area.
5 That was the bottom line of the whole report.
6 ) Dr. Landsman, within the NRC who was the person most 7 f amiliar with the soils effort and how it was being 8 implemented at the site?
9 A I was.
10 0 And what was your conclusion with respect to whether 11 Consumers . Power was capable of curing the soils problem at 12 the site by this time?
13 A I'm trying to get myself back in the time f rame. I think 14 back then I didn' t have any confidence in that they'd be 15 able to pull it of f.
16 !!R. GOOLD: No further direct examination.
17 !!R. LIDBY: Just for the record, I'm going 18 to get my documents together and come back tomorrow at 19 nine o' clock. And thank you f or your patience so f ar and 20 I hope you' re patient with me tomorrow morning. I don' t 21 Enticipate it's going to take more than two or three hours 22 at most. !!ow about nine o' clock?
23 MR. GOOLD: Pine.
24 !!R. RICCI: Off the record. End of tapo i
" P "" ' " '
$A[Q)ttlf OM$dMe NIO Wbut itTR lluy sa. . 9 s a .'i > : . >-.: ,
Farmattan lidh, Whean molM 1%t. Whigan 482.'%
~__ __- . _
.. t s
i 1 -
- numte.r 3 ' at 2046.- !
-2 (The deposition was adjourned f or- j ,.
l' 3 the day at 2 : 00 p. m. ) ;
i;! .i 4-1 5 !
l t
6 i 7 i 8
9 . .!
t t
10 i
' i 11 f 12 6 h
f i
14 ,
, 15 1
.i
'I 1G r
L 17 r 18 !
z ;
i 19 !
20 :
l 21 22 .
. )
i 23 i i
! 24 ;
i I
' l 99 L Lund Repuung Senia 3mm %rthuruern Huy. ;
. isytta kwu Suhr MO 962 11I6 Suite :3) {
(1rtrat, \fichigan W:M Farmneton Hk %kigen mola L 1
O 1
2 STATE OF MICIIGNI )
) SS 3 COUNTY OF WAYNE )
4 I, Glenn G. Miller, Notary Public 5 41 thin and for the County of Wayne, State of Michigan, do 6 aereby certify that the witness whose attached deposition 7 aas taken bef ore me in the above-entitled matter was by me 8 duly sworn at the af orementioned time and place; that the 9 testimony given by said witness was stenographically 10 tecorded in the presence of said witness and af terwards 11 hranscribed by computer under my personal supervision, 1
12 and that the said -leposition is a f ull, true and correct 13 transcript of the testimony given by the witness.
14 I further certify that I am not connected 15 ay blood or marriage with any of the parties or their 16 a ttor ney s, and that I am not an employee of either of them, 17 nor financially interested in the action. l.
18 IN WITNESS WilEREOF, I have hereunto set 19 ny hand at the City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of 3 20 Llichigan, this b day of (t , 1985.
(' 9 21 ,y 22 **
GLENN G. MILLER, Notary Public 23 Wayne County, !!ichigan 24 !!y Commission Expires: 4-22-87 Luod Reporting Service y ,o y,,, ,,,,,,
lafayette Building Suite fa0 962 11i6 Sung,2:a Detroit. \fichigan 4822t> Farmonston Ilill<, \lidigan 18018
Da 1
2 VERIPICATIOM OF DEPO!!E11T .g 3 . I, ROSS LANDSMAti, do hereby 5 4 attest to the correctness of the transcript upon inclusion 5 of the corrections and/or changes I have listed on the 6 attached errata sheet.
7 Signature of Witness 8
Subscribed and sworn to before me 9 this day of ,
1985.
10
-l 11 12 Motary Public, County
!W Commission expires: .
13 .
14 .
15 16 17 18 19 20 ,
21 !
22 23 i
24 l 1 01 Lu:od Reporting Service y ,p z.,,g ,,,, ,, _
lafayette Buildine _
Suite MO 962 1176 Suite 220 lk troit. \fichigan 48226 Farmnnetem Ildts. \fichigan mala
- . - . . . - . .. -. . - . - - - - _ . - . . . - -_ . _ . - .. .- .